User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm afraid that if you continue your behaviour at the Gingrich presidential campaign article you will almost certainly be reported for edit-warring, a blockable offence. You need to read and understand e.g. WP:WEIGHT and WP:EDITWARRING before you continue. I shall not revert your latest offering at present but others may. I repeat that, if you then insist on reverting to your versions now that your attention has been drawn to the reasons for their deficiencies, including WP:WEIGHT, you will almost certainly be reported for edit-warring. I am posting this to the talk pages of the other IP addresses from which you edit the article. Writegeist (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Your response here appears to completely violate WP:AGF frankly. And while I've tried very much to assume good faith in your edits, it really is pretty hard. You've repeatedly made changes which do not provide NPOV but instead put Gingrich in a more favorable light than facts show. You discount news sources which others on Wiki consider RS and don't see justification. I personally don't find one politician more or less favorable than the other at this point other than I'm not a fan of Obama and therefore if it was Romney or Ron Paul's people stepping on a supporter of the other I'd find it important and something to be included also. I spend a lot of my time on the news including televised, internet, paper, and radio and listen to CNN, Fox and NPR to be sure to get more than one angle. So, when I'm trying to report an event that clearly has been picked up either freshly or rebroadcast by many news sources (and I've tried to limit it to more recognized ones) and therefore isn't meaningless, I don't get the constant barrage of WP this and that which if you read them don't really apply and the edits to dismiss the event or make it seem more favorable for Gingrich hidden behind WP:Weight...which also doesn't apply by the way. From my perspective... I'm posting the facts as presented and you are "warring" as if you know more than everyone else. Maybe I have you wrong... I read your bio so I dunno... but that's how it feels on this end..... oh and just because I'm anon IP doesn't mean I'm not a real person... I just lurk more than post so no need to spend time setting up an account. (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have no doubt that your edits to the article content are made in good faith, and I've neither claimed nor implied otherwise, so accusing me of "violating" it by trying to help you rather mystifies me. Unfortunately your good intentions do not change your apparent need to gain a better understanding of the policies and guidelines that have been drawn to your attention. In fact if you understood them better, you would be better able to put your good intentions into productive effect. The way you are trying to edit the article at the moment is becoming tendentious and disruptive, and looks a lot like edit-warring. I'm afraid I'm not interested in your personal political views, or in how much time you spend on the news. I am aware that you are "a real person". Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pat Ward[edit]

Thank you for you update to Pat Ward. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Poepkop. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Soldiers of the Cross Church without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Poepkop (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)