User talk:Mvakkur

Welcome!

Hello, Mvakkur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know your way around Wikipedia, but just the same, message me if you have any questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pompeo and using Think Progress as a reliable source for a WP:BLP

I just want to let you know that i removed your sources for Think Progress in the Mike Pompeo article. As Think Progress is a political group blog it is not a reliable source. Content added to a biography of a living person needs to be sourced to a reliable source and for contentious content it should have multiple reliable sources. The content that you added that used Think Progress as a source will be removed unless someone adds reliable sourced. If you would like to keep the content you added from being removed than feel free to add reliable sources with citations. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, regarding your subsequent edits to this same article, YouTube is not a reliable source for any article, especially a biography of a living person. User Arbor8 (talk ● contribs) has fixed the article and removed content that either was poorly sourced or not of a neutral point of view. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the content in that article, User Arbor8 (talk ● contribs) did, for the reasons he/she cited in his/her edit summary and as he/she explained in the following section. All I did was remove the references to Think Progress because of the reasons I stated above and in my edit summary. But you are wrong about YouTube, YouTube is not a reliable source (even if it's Mike Pompeo's YouTube Channel and videos of him, because of WP:PRIMARY, you want to find reliable secondary sources. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pompeo, more generally

I've rolled back your recent edits to Mike Pompeo as they are decidedly non-neutral, promote a point of view, and frequently engage in coatracking. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV before editing further. Arbor8 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop re-adding the content that that has been removed and participate in the conversation on the articles talk page before re-adding the content that is definitely WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACKING, because Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making edits without logging in?

Are you making edits from your without logging in, under 85.5.180.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), if so you should state that on your User Page or Talk Page, otherwise it could be taken to be WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and you can be banned for that. As the timing of the edits on the Mike Pompeo article seem to indicate that that is you. King of Nothing (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. Unintentional. I didn't realize my browser had signed me out. Sorry. Mvakkur (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, happens. As long as you say its you if/when asked, its no big deal. Article definitely looks a lot better since you cleaned it upped. Cheers. King of Nothing (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Mike Pompeo. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. King of Nothing (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this process but must admit I am new to it also. I added much original information to the Mike Pompeo article, all of it cited, most of it his own words. You asked me to provide better citation in some cases; in all cases I complied. Another user then deleted everything I wrote, overwriting it with her own text. She did not make an effort to communicate to me that she was going to do this or why (I read some of her comments after the fact, mostly along the lines of questions with POV, but she did not remove only the objectionable content, but all of it). Also, I was very frustrated to see that I responded to and reworded a section where someone noted "citation needed" and my new corrected text was replaced by the older text (complete with "citation needed") at least 3 times. I read this from Wikipedia's own section on removing the text of others: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." Mike Pompeo is not a neutral or noncontroversial character. It seems difficult to believe that articles related to public figures, even living ones, who are making their careers through controversy and extremist language cannot have that language be part of their article. Mvakkur (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about Mike Pompeo (mainly because my POV on him is pretty much the same as yours, which is why I was content to just removing the cites to Think Progress, YouTube, and Twitter and just adding citation needed tags). But, then Arbor8 brought the very valid points about WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACKING up and I felt obligated as an Editor to defend Arbor8 and his/her changes which were valid and right. We need to be careful to make sure that our point of view doesn't color and bias the article. I try not to edit content about article subjects that I'm biased for or against (which is why I stuck to only making changes to correct explicit Wikipedia policies violations and not copyediting). Well, Good Luck. If you have any questions about policy areas that you're confused about, you can leave me a question on my talk page and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can. Sorry if I seemed hostile at any point (was not my intention). I do suggest that if your changes get reverted again, take it to the talk page and try to get other editors involved to work towards a fairer article. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should review the WP:3RR policy. Even if you think or even know you are right on policy and/or common sense grounds, you can't edit war. After you re-added the information from your IP and I removed it, you should have just taken it to the talk page and not re-added it until a consensus was reached. But especially after you re-added a second time and I removed it, you definitely should not have re-added it, because that violated the WP:3RR policy and you could have been blocked just for that. I didn't pursue that (and I'm glad I didn't), which would have been very easy to do, because I hoped that I could get you to start having a conversation with me and/or anyone else to see why what you were doing violated Wikipedia policies. Just be careful in the future, and when in doubt about whether you should make another revert, then just don't make it and take it to the talk page. You might want to review WP:BLP too (because some of the stuff you had added in definitely violated it) and WP:BLP is taken extremely seriously. Also, remember (and this very important): just because somethings true doesn't mean you can add it to an article, Wikipedia:But it's true!. Good Luck M8, King of Nothing (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]