Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:07, 23 June 2010

Sources

Hi, if you want to add things like this you should have a source for it. Otherwise it could just be misconstrued as nonsense that you fabricated out of thin air. --Brendan19 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit that you made to the page Alvin Greene has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments to User:Brendan19

Hello 68.41.55.171, I noticed the message you left on User talk:Brendan19. I just wanted to to take a moment to inform/remind you not to attack other editors such as you did with, "your TRASHY comment", "Your arrogant smug attitude" and "misguided political leanings". Remember to assume good faith and to remain cool when you disagree with another editor. If you do disagree with another editor, discuss your changes with them, and attempt to work out a compromise. That way, a consensus can be reached about the article content. Thanks, Prodego 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be the case that another editor makes insulting or degrading comments against you. If that occurs, that doesn't excuse you from doing that same thing. If you do encounter an editor who attacks you, remember to remain calm, and follow the same process of discussing your edits with them. It may just be a misunderstanding. The page on the dispute resolution process has more information for you - you may find reading it to be helpful. It explains what to do if you disagree with another editor about the inclusion of material in an article. Prodego 02:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Alvin Greene. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As Ian notes, you can't just assume that anyone who reverts your edits is doing so due to a political bias. You have to discuss your changes with them, figure out what the problem is, and hopefully agree on agree on a version that you both are satisfied with. Otherwise, you should follow the dispute resolution process I linked to above to work out what version of the article to use. Prodego 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comments you left on my talk page

Actually, I'm a socialist. Not being a Republican does not mean one is a Democrat (if it does, then you not voting for him means you're automatically a Republican, which means you're partisan in slamming the Democrats, unless we're both willing to assume good faith here, quit being paranoid, and stop accusing everyone of being politically biased). The first source of your addition was a blog. Blogs almost never meet the reliable source guidelines, end of story. Your addition makes the democrats who are angry he got in (not me) look bad. Honestly, they deserve it. However, the second source is just one guy. Only one guy. There's a difference between the singular and the plural. One observer is not the same as multiple observers. Thus, the second source does not support the word "observers." See the guidelines concerning original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alvin Greene. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Brendan19 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3

I have reported you to the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring at Alvin Greene. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_68.41.55.171_reported_by_Stonemason89. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. I have blocked you for 31 hours for a violation of the three revert rule and for pushing a biased point of view on a biography of a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and this is not the place for you to make a political point. When your block expires, please edit constructively. If you feel this block is unfair, you may use the {{unblock}} template to request a review. --B (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

POV and Original Research

Hello again. This edit is another example of Misplaced Pages:No_original_research and non-Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view. Nowhere in the source you used was the word 'liberal.' Also, you claim that "Other area environmental advocates disagree with the politically-charged Sierra Club's sprawl prediction." Again, the source does not say this. The source gives one quote by one other environmentalist. If you want to say that one other person disagrees, then that would be acceptable. To insert "politically-charged" when it is not in the source is also unacceptable. Please read the original research and NPOV sections that I mention above. I am not opposed to everything you inserted, but you can't add your own words to it. Just say what the source says. I would think that after coming off a block from editing for this kind of thing you would learn your lesson. Hopefully my suggestions here will help in keeping you from being blocked again.--Brendan19 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)