User talk:SFC MAC
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]Hello, SFC MAC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to leave me a message on my talk/chat page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages to help you. The left column contains tutorials and introductory pages while the right shows ways to help out Wikipedia.
|
|
Additional Tips:
- Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The
button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
- If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.
- Also check out the Adopt-a-User program that is designed to help out inexperienced users with Wikipedia by pairing them up with a knowledgeable editor.
Thanks for your edits to the Iraq War article! Unfortunately, several Wikipedia policies were violated, most notably Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Also, some of the material appears to have been copied directly from another website. Lastly, some of the information in inserted is not pertinent to the section it was placed in (i.e. Brian Baird's views on the Iraq war and the information on Gitmo). If you have any questions about anything I've mentioned, or anything else about editing on Wikipedia, please contact me on my talk page.--Rise Above the Vile 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong person
[edit]Hello, the message you left here was for the wrong person: User_talk:Hdt83#.22neutrality.2C_reliable_sources.2C_and_Wikipedia.22, I did not edit the Iraq war article and it seems you were trying to contact User_talk:Rise_Above_the_Vile. Thanks. --Hdt83 Chat 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: "neutrality, reliable sources, and Wikipedia"
[edit]My talk page is not a forum, it is used to discuss editing articles; I'm not interested in hearing your views on "the NBCCBSABCCNNMSNBCPBS news conglomerate."
Well guy, on that note Wikipedia apparently isn't interested in presenting the whole picture, as evidenced by the deletion of input.
- Concerning your edits to the "U.S. troops" section on the Iraq War article:
- The material you posted [1] was removed for two reasons. First, it had nothing to do with the section - what you posted simply contained the views of one democratic congressman, not the views of US troops. While including the views of US politicians in an appropriate section in the article would acceptable, inserting three paragraphs about one congressman would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. The second (and more important) reason the material was removed is that you copied it straight from the source, which is illegal as the material is copyrighted.
Okay, so if I cite webpages of Soldiers who lend a direct refutation to that so-called "Poll", you gonna delete that too?
- Concerning your edits to "Human rights abuses" on the Iraq War article:
- Again, much of the material you posted [2] was removed because you copied it straight from the source. My WP:RS comment was concerning the source http://www.righttrack.us/2007/07/23/finally-al-qaeda-goes-too-far/al. The material about Gitmo was removed because this particular article is about the Iraq War (hence the title?), not Gitmo. There is an article on Gitmo, I suggest you take it there.
- Concerning your edits to the Iraq Survey Group article:
- Again, the material you posted had very little to do with the subject. There are more appropriate articles for this material, such as Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, take the material there.
Wait a minute, the inclusion of my citations of TERRORIST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject? About three quarters of the way down the Iraq War page is a big fat section titled : HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. You don't even pay attention to what's in your own content, my dear. In addition to their activities, that's part of what GOT THEM INTO GITMO. You know, the whole blowing up innocent people thing.
I believe I've covered everything; if there is something I've missed or need to clarify for you, don't hesitate to ask me.--Rise Above the Vile 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way: Wikipedia is pretty much a joke around the internet, incase you weren't aware. It's that way because it claims to be "unbiased' and "neutral". One look at the slant of the articles and the ease with which a leftist can edit and construct articles built around their (and your) agendas belies that claim. Thus, when an attempt is made to refute the content in the interest of balance, it gets deleted. The only reason I came on the Wikipedia site was to correct some of the crap that passes for "facts", especially when it comes to the GWOT and the military. I included some additional information regarding the Duelfer Report on the "appropriate" page and it was deleted. Wikipedia will not let all the facts get in the way of "neutrality".
Just ask Larry Sanger. Wasn't he your founder? And didn't he say that Wikipedia “had no respect for experts”? And here's a direct quote: “Wikipedia, to put it plainly, lacks the sort of credibility and reliability that traditionally edited resources have". Here, want the citation? http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794
SFC MAC 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your latest series of edits to my talk page make it seem like you're expecting some sort of response here, but frankly, until you take the time to actually comprehend what I have previously told you I don't have anything further to say to you. If you're going to continue to violate Wikipedia policy (not to mention US copyright law), don't bother editing here.--Rise Above the Vile 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I comprehend more than you know. The only thing that's been violated is your bias. If you took the time to actually create a website that has credibility, you might get more respect. Until then, keep blabbering about "violations" if it makes you feel better. Have a nice day.
Vandalism warning
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Judy Mikovits. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)