Hopefully it's okay to throw in a template.
Template:Userspace file (T-H-L):
This specific image or media file, uploaded and used on (a) Wikipedia contributor(s) user page(s), should not be copied to Wikimedia Commons.
While the license of this work may be compliant with Commons, its usefulness to other projects is unlikely. It should not be copied to Commons unless a specific other usage is anticipated.
.
But that's nothing compared to what turned up when Googling this thread, which was on page one of a search for "crap articles". Number one in the search was
Wikipedia:Crap (T-H-L), which is, itself, crap IMO.
This page in a nutshell:
Just because you have a reliable source does not mean your edit is a good one.
Do not cite WP:BRD if your edit is removed. It is an essay, not a right to revert.
You need to Accept good faith on the part of other editors, and not just expect it from them.
At times you will have little option but to say an edit is Crap. Either it is heavily WP:POV, or perhaps WP:OR with a little WP:SYNTH thrown in for good measure. You will explain patiently via edit summaries and on talk pages why this is so. But the other guy just will not engage the actual reasons, usually saying the sources meet WP:RS. Or they will revert you after you have removed the crap, then cite WP:BRD and bore you to tears on the talk page in the hope you will just give up. They will never see how their additions are original research. Or even that their edits are quite simply crap.
Here's the illustration: (edit: this is an image of some kind of feces)
Does your editing look like a large pile of this?
That's a lot of alphabet soup, and it goes on like that for three paragraphs.
(edited to add hide tags, and note that the image is grody)