User talk:Doin' it for the shorties

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

Censorship[edit]

Wikipedia is not censored for children. Please do not remove content for such reasons. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd warning[edit]

Once again; Wikipedia is not censored. Also, please do not use disparaging remarks in edit summaries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take your issues to the talk page if you have content conflicts.

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers!

3rd warning[edit]

Regarding this edit Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have issues. Removing "The easter bunny is a huge evil creature bent on killing little children and eating there faces" is not a personal attack on anyone. Did you mean to send this to the vandal I removed?

I came here to compliment you on your user name, but an edit summary of "vandal faggot" is definitely a personal attack, regardless of its target. See also this and this.—dgiestc 15:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

If you continue to censor Wikipedia, you will be blocked for violating policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT is your major malfunction? I am not censoring anything! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.55.53 (talkcontribs).


{{helpme}}[edit]

How can I be of assistance? ➪HiDrNick! 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I need help with accusations of censorship.

I've seen in your edit history that another editor has been accusing you of violating WP:NOT by censoring articles. I can also see that many of your edits are good-faith efforts to make changes to articles better. However, the long-term pattern of your edits seems to indicate a bias against the use of particular words to describe children's myths. Some editors may conclude that you are trying to introduce a non-neutral point-of-view into these articles with your edits, which is against the rules. This has resulted in a slow-motion revert war, where you an other editors take turns changing the article back and forth between your two versions.

I want to point out one thing in particular for you to avoid: [1]. Here you make a correct change to an article, and report your intentions correctly in the edit summary. At the same time, you made a change to the wording in the lead paragraph, which is what the fuss is all about, but you say nothing about it in the edit summary. Why? Many editors find this sort of action misleading. You should not pick and choose what to detail in edit summary like that, particularly if you think another editor might disagree with your choice.

Why not take the high road instead? You should take your concerns with the wording to the talk pages of the articles in question and try to reach a compromise with the other editors. Don't worry about what the actual article says in the meantime, just try to reach a consensus on the talk page. As long as you continue to make good-faith efforts to improve articles, you don't need to worry about being blocked or banned or anything like that; you too are a valued contributor to Wikipedia.

If you are unable to reach an agreement with the editors of the article in question, there are other processes to draw the attention of other editors to your issue, including WP:RFC. But first try to work things out on the talk pages.

Regards, ➪HiDrNick! 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)