User talk:Workreviews

Workreviews, You are incorrect in stating that Orthodontics and Prosthodontics are the only fields in dentistry that can appropriately offer Cosmetic Dentistry. Please allow the correction I previously offered. DentalSchoolProf (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Omar Mateen

You've edited three times on Omar Mateen, once with a misleading edit summary. Please stop. There's no consensus to use that descriptor and it's the subject of multiple RfCs. Please go to Talk:Omar Mateen. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Omar Mateen, you may be blocked from editing. Editing against consensus and during and rfc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a real liar and I will report your lies to Wikipedia. President Obama has called this a terrorist act and he is a terrorist. You are an anti-American liar who wants this to be called as an American Mass Murderer instead of Islamic terrorism. Whose side are you in? I would love the FBI to investigate people like you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Workreviews (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Workreviews, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My comment is based on FACTS (even acknowledged by POTUS) but has been edited for LIES by Wikipedia content editors. I have no time to waste on commenting on contributors. I only care about truth, which is being masked for unknown intentions. People trust Wikipedia for truth and truth must not be blocked due to pandering efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workreviews (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:TRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Personal attacks and casting aspersions are not allowed. If you are interested in contributing to Omar Mateen constructively, please join the discussion on Talk:Omar Mateen. There's an effort to build consensus there and an ongoing "request for comments". Please remember that article talk pages are not a forum but meant for discussing improvements to the article. This is your final warning regarding your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ani notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FOR SELLING YOUR SOULS TO BLOCK TRUTH AND BLOCKING LAY PEOPLE LIKE ME TO ADVANCE YOUR LEFTIST AGENDAS! IS ALL THIS BASED ON APPEALING TO THE DONORS? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO STATE A SIMPLE FACT THAT OMAR MATEEN WAS A MUSLIM AMERICAN. WHAT IS THE HARM IN STATING THIS FACT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workreviews (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not the first brand new editor to make such accusations. It helps to understand Wikipedia policies and principles, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'll try to explain this specific situation, but I'll not spend more time on it if you continue to show that you have no interest in learning.
Both articles make it abundantly clear that he was a Muslim, we are not suppressing that widely-reported fact. But to place that prominently in the first sentence is to give it too much emphasis, to impart too much importance to the fact. This is according to the current consensus, which can always change. Editors spend an enormous amount of time deciding what should go into an article's lead, and in particular its first sentence, as can be seen at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 6#RfC: Should the mass shooting be called a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence?, and at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 6#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate the time you took to explain the rationale, what and who gives these anti-american communist "editors" the authority to decide what is "too much emphasis" and what is not? To your argument, I would argue that mentioning savage Omar Mateen as an "American" in the very first sentence is too much emphasis on his nationality! That is an anti-american agenda that Wikipedia wants to promote to pander to the rest of the world. If Wikipedia truly cared to be neutral and eliminate nationality and religion in sentences, then the sentence should at least say Omar Mateen was a terrorist who massacred 49 unarmed people. That is the fact and everyone knows it! I am so disappointed in Wikipedia as this is my first experience learning its ideology. I used to believe that as long as the fact is "true", Wikipedia supported it and did not revert changes. Wikipedia needs to stay away from politics!! Shame on Wikipedia editors for subscribing to an ideology and altering facts to pander to everyone! Also, how would anyone know how many of Wikipedia editors are ISIS sympathizers/supporters? I am convinced the original "editor" Evergreenfir is certainly one! Workreviews (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)