User talk:Jbgtx

Please stop acting unilaterally

You are constantly making edits to the Dean A. Hrbacek article that raise serious issues of neutrality. These issues need to be discussed on the article's talk page, Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek. If you just ignore everyone else's views and keep unilaterally inserting your own, your edits will be reverted. You should also take note of the rule against edit warring -- Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Your present course is likely to get you blocked from editing. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you continue to revert unilaterally and continue to refuse to discuss the issues on the talk page, I have listed the matter at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I am trying to resolve this without compromising Wikipedia's neutrality and without getting you blocked -- but the first goal is more important than the second. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dean A. Hrbacek. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. I am new to Wikipedia and not totally familiar with the protocols. Because the Hrbacek bio is in a hot political situation right now, there have been multiple attempts to corrupt the content from factual to very negative. I was trying to keep to the facts but in politics, that can be somewhat subjective. I will try to not cross the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.149.217 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. All the other editor wants is for the both of you to come up with text all parties can agree with. The mechanism for doing that is to discuss it on the article's talk page Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek. I have moved your comment that you left on the other editor's user talk page to the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your recent comments and I'm leaving this message to let you know that it is generally considered inappropriate on Wikipedia to accuse other editors in such a manner. Here we encourage collaborative editing between people with differing points of view. See Wikipedia:Civility for more information, or ask me if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I will try to stay within the rules. The problem that is occuring is related to a political process where one side attempts to position negatives and the other factual which has positve elements. Given that the process is ongoing and dynamic, the situation almost ends up being a campaign on line which is not the purpose of a bio. Jbgtx (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many political articles on Wikipedia and in most cases editors of differing viewpoints manage to work together harmoniously, and there is absolutely no reason this can't be one of them. You cannot assume that editors have a different opinion about article content as a result of the "political process". Gamaliel (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Learning the system.Jbgtx (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the tildes, another device for talk-page organization is indentation. In general, the first comment is flush left. Response to it are preceded by a single colon to produce one indent. Replies to those responses are preceded by two colons, and so on. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting for more detail. JamesMLane t c 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]