User talk:Gobbleygook: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:59, 10 May 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Gobbleygook, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbleygook, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Gobbleygook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored

I've once again reverted your changes to Project Censored. You have duplicated already existing criticisms and you've given them undue weight. Please see Talk:Project_Censored#Confusing_edits for more information. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Turks ‎

I've reverted your changes to The Young Turks. iTunes is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia nor is CurrentTV. Please stop trying to characterize people and things as having a specific political affiliation. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct

I've reverted your changes to the New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct article. Please stop trying to characterize people and things as having a specific political affiliation as a pejorative. That's not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about your edits here and you've continued to make them. Therefore, I am now giving you an official 3RR warning.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and Freedom Party

I've reverted your changes to the Peace and Freedom Party party. Please do not use partisan sources to write about our subjects or to tag them with "left-wing" as a pejorative. Please have a look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Scahill

I've reverted your changes to Jeremy Scahill. Your edits disrupted the lead section which properly summarized the article and reverted to a 2004-era type lead section, leading me to believe you are a returning user. You've also attempted to throw around the "left-wing" and "progressive" labels as if they were pejoratives, which does not fit in with our normal writing style. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are edit warring. Please don't do this. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan ‎

I've reverted your changes to Cindy Sheehan, most of which I do not understand. Please take your concerns to the open thread on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Fallujah

I've reverted your changes to Second Battle of Fallujah. You appear to misunderstand what the concept of "independent" means in relation to Dahr Jamail. He's an unembedded journalist which makes him independent. This is not even up for discussion. Finally, you are engaging in the use of the term "politically leftist" as a pejorative again, so I've removed it. I think you need to slow down and learn how to edit Wikipedia before doing this again. Wikipedia isn't Fox News or Conservapedia. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content with dead links

Hi. We don't delete content because it has a dead link. There are numerous ways to verify sources that do not require URLs. Please don't continue to remove content because you can't find the link. Also, I recommend you take a break and study the policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on this one, I was about to put the ^{[dead link]} tag after I finished my last edit on the talk page of Project Censored. Will do that now and be more careful of this in the future. Gobbleygook (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "dead link" is irrelevant. What is relevant, is if you can confirm and verify the source and content. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dahr Jamail

Hello. I've reverted your edits to Dahr Jamail as they failed to improve the article and reduced the lead to one sentence. If you have time to do research and add sources and content, then please feel free to help out. However, we don't reduce lead sections to one sentence and add multiple fact tags when the article is already properly tagged. Please feel free to ask questions or start a discussion on the talk page if this isn't making sense. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Hello. Your edits to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia were reverted by another editor. In case you don't know, it is best practice to represent the most important points in the WP:LEAD section per WP:NPOV. We need to have balanced articles that properly summarize the subject for our readers. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 Hello.  I've reverted your edits to [[Dahr Jamail]] as they failed to improve the article and reduced the lead to one sentence.  If you have time to do research and add sources and content, then please feel free to help out.  However, we don't reduce lead sections to one sentence and add multiple fact tags when the article is already properly tagged.  Please feel free to ask questions or start a discussion on the talk page if this isn't making sense. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
+== NATO bombing of Yugoslavia ==
+Hello.  Your edits to [[NATO bombing of Yugoslavia]] were reverted by another editor.  In case you don't know, it is best practice to represent the most important points in the [[WP:LEAD]] section per [[WP:NPOV]].  We need to have balanced articles that properly summarize the subject for our readers. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)