User talk:Itreeye
August 2010[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Restoring Honor rally, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Restoring Honor rally[edit]
I thought I should let you know that I've reverted your last batch of edits to Restoring Honor rally. For instance, you changed "Media-related" to "Leftist leaning -- Media-related", or throwing in references (without attribution) to critics of Beck being "Leftists" (a term that is remarkably hard to pin down), or saying that A. J. Calhoun (one of your Leftists himself) "slandered and insulted" Beck rather than "denounced" as was originally in the article.
I went through every change you'd made since the last anti-vandalism revert (which were, in fact, all of the changes made to the article since that revert) and I'm afraid that every one of them was a) inappropriate POV-pushing (e.g., adding in the Civil Rights section that criticism of Beck was "In spite of their obvious discouraging of King's 'color-blind society' dream for over forty years"), b) unsourced when sourcing was absolutely necessary (e.g., your addition of " (And a disproportionate amount of blacks compared to the US population and black voting trends)" to the Douthat quote), or c) both of the above at once (e.g., removing the word "conservative" from the Douthat discussion and replacing it with "San Francisco Leftist").
It's clear that you feel strongly about the rally and criticism of Beck, and there's nothing wrong with that -- but that can't carry over into editing. The effect of your series of edits (consistently mis-tagged as "minor") was to give the reader a grossly different impression of what was actually said, not to mention of the character of those saying it. In the utter absence of any sources, and in the presence of every indication that your edits were POV-pushing, I've reverted them.
Sorry if the above came out too blunt. I have no animosity towards you whatsoever; I just want the wiki to be free of inappropriate POV editing and the like.
dcd139 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, the corollary of "I've reverted your last batch of edits" is "Please stop re-adding the same content". You've restored pretty much everything I undid, including things like deleting the Zaitchik information and labeling Salon.com "Leftist". Also, you're continuing to tag content edits as minor, which really isn't appropriate. I have reverted you again. Please stop adding the content you're adding unless you have sources. Thank you.
dcd139 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, please stop. Your characterizations of Alveda King are anything but neutral, and dubbing the media "left-leaning", Salon "leftist", and Douthat "moderate" (this last in contradiction to his own page, to say nothing of your earlier edit calling him a "San Francisco Leftist") ends up looking like a crude attempt to make everyone who's pro-Beck seem awesome and everyone who's anti-Beck seem horrible. (Also, it seems a bit ridiculous to refer, as you did in your edit summaries, to criticism of Beck as slander.) I can't revert you any more owing to WP:3RR, but your edits are not appropriate and will, with any luck, meet the same fate as the earlier ones. Thank you.
dcd139 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for being polite in your disagreement with my edits. I have to point out though that some of your shared POV as to why you've changed my edits is easily debatable. Such as: "critics of Beck being "Leftists" (a term that is remarkably hard to pin down)" Now, for the term to be 'remarkably' hard to pin down one would have to be ignorant of what the term means. Yet the definition is easily as definable as is the term 'conservative' (which is frequently used) and one that is certainly more appropriate than the term 'liberal' since that word has dramatically changed meaning in the last few decades. (eg. give near any speech of JFK w/out his name on it to college kids, and they'd guess it was written by a Republican. In short, the Left has taken over the Democratic party, thus supplanting the meaning of the word liberal so as to be inappropriate to refer to many in the D party as simply 'liberals'. The word Left, when used in a political sense is essentially and simply the same as the Social Democratic parties currently in Europe. (If you disagree I would challenge you to name one position that they differ with the current Democratic party in the US) Anyway and also, the language used to describe some of the deeply insulting quotes about Glenn was also misleading in that it was clearly personal and presumptuous in nature, yet was depicted as having some validity beyond the individual's own emotive insistence. Please consider my thoughts with respect as I have yours, and i can be more specific to points in question if you wish. Cheers, itreeye
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Restoring Honor rally, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Millahnna (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Restoring Honor rally. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Jusdafax 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Hello, thank you for being polite in your disagreement with my edits. I have to point out though that some of your shared POV as to why you've changed my edits is easily debatable. Such as: "critics of Beck being "Leftists" (a term that is remarkably hard to pin down)" Now, for the term to be 'remarkably' hard to pin down one would have to be ignorant of what the term means. Yet the definition is easily as definable as is the term 'conservative' (which is frequently used) and one that is certainly more appropriate than the term 'liberal' since that word has dramatically changed meaning in the last few decades. (eg. give near any speech of JFK w/out his name on it to college kids, and they'd guess it was written by a Republican. In short, the Left has taken over the Democratic party, thus supplanting the meaning of the word liberal so as to be inappropriate to refer to many in the D party as simply 'liberals'. The word Left, when used in a political sense is essentially and simply the same as the Social Democratic parties currently in Europe. (If you disagree I would challenge you to name one position that they differ with the current Democratic party in the US) Anyway and also, the language used to describe some of the deeply insulting quotes about Glenn was also misleading in that it was clearly personal and presumptuous in nature, yet was depicted as having some validity beyond the individual's own emotive insistence. Please consider my thoughts with respect as I have yours, and i can be more specific to points in question if you wish. Cheers, itreeye
Sockpuppetry case[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.31.101.247 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Millahnna (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)