User talk:Jörg ÖA

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Lutz Heilmann has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! sinneed (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to take a step back. You clearly have a desire to improve Wikipedia, but this is not the way. If several editors are warning you that an edit is a Bad Thing, please consider carefully before proceeding. I know I want more good editors, and I really hate it when a nice new editor flames out over a single article. Please look over the guidelines, and consider how serious "censorship" is likely to be... it is a VERY strong term. All the best! :) sinneed (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policies

Hi, you seem to be pretty new here, so please check out the Wikipedia Policies WP:POL, WP:BLP, WP:NOT. If you do you'll see that neutrality is not "censorship" but the basis of a reliable encyclopedia.Six words (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion

Please note that I have removed your edits of Sahra Wagenknecht, which incorporated terms such as "totalitarian" and "extremist" per NPOV and WP:LIVE. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a neutral source and cannot make moral judgments. --Linkswechsel (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reinserting these statements in articles such as Sahra Wagenknecht and The Left (Germany). If you wish to discuss this, it would be best to bring it up on the respective talk pages. --Linkswechsel (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

Please note that I have referred your edits to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. I have listed you as a party in the dispute. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Edits by User:Jörg ÖA. You may add a statement of 500 words in this section. --Linkswechsel (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoV. To be avoided.

Please note that "a member of the National Committee of the Left Party." is not PoV. It is a neutral statement, whether true or false. Substituting "and a member of the National Committee of the far left" *IS* PoV, even when citing a published opinion. There is no party called "far left", of which the person might be a member of the National Committee. Please don't do this again. Perhaps add something, on the order of "There are arguments that "The Left" would be more accurately named "The Far Left", and cite your reference that states so. Inserting a PoV statement, as fact, and hiding behind an opinion piece is NOT acceptable. Opinion, such as classing a party as "far left", "far right", "centrist", etc. *IS* PoV. It can be included, but carefully. Please see WP:WTA. You know better than this. sinneed (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Sahra Wagenknecht: Please stop at once. There is not one single comment here. There has been no attempt to reach a consensus. There is no excuse for refusing to work toward a solution. If you don't both care enough to discuss, then you should abandon your edits. sinneed (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sahra Wagenknecht. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please ***STOP*** at once. sinneed (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]