User talk:LAMHM11

February 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Imconfused3456 13:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done extensive research on this subject and the references I gave show that research. Many of the allegations presented in the docuseries have been proven false, one I sited specifically with references. I also referenced court documents that were deleted. Also, why is a documentary able to be a reliable source but a video exposing the lies in the documentary not a reliable source? The suggestion that a documentary is reliable solely on who produced it is not proof it is reliable.

MY resources and references that prove my edits were deleted. If Wiki is not interested in allowing references that prove points, why is it on the internet?

Even in the Bill Gothard and IBLP pages, I cited court documents that were deleted and references listed that show the truth of what is taught in IBLP is different than what is stated on the Wiki page. All that was also deleted. These were court documents... materials from IBLP itself that were deleted. How is the not reliable? 2600:1700:2C10:1AC0:A89B:7B2A:3C09:3781 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents and youtube videos are not acceptible sources for Wikipedia, see WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FarmerUpbeat. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FarmerUpbeat (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of view expressed on the Bill Gothard page and the Institute in Basic Life Principles page are not neutral. Neither is the Shiny Happy People Duggar Family Secrets page. Those pages are not only inaccurate, but are showing a bias against the subjects involved. References that corrected the false accusations including court documents and IBLP materials were deleted when posted. That is not neutral. 2600:1700:2C10:1AC0:A89B:7B2A:3C09:3781 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not engage in false neutrality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia articles follow the mainstream view as given in sources that meet its citation requirements - which do not include youtube videos or other social media postings. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Jdcomix (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the same disruption immediately after your block is a terrible idea, kindly stop before you're just blocked again. Wikipedia cannot use social media postings such as youtube videos as sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LAMHM11 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]