Gothamwriter

AfD nomination of Erik Werth

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Erik Werth. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Werth. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erik Werth

The article Erik Werth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, and not a single credible source is referenced.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amin (Talk) 03:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Edit notes were provided for The Third Jihad and your edit reversions are not justified. The film was indeed controversial and there are two sides to the story. The current entry only reflects one side -- critics on the political left and from controversial CAIR. Based on the content and pattern of your edits, I'm concerned that you are unfairly editing and controlling content in a way the reflects a bias about the film. I see others have complained about the objectivity of your edits of entries related to radical Islam so this is an administrator integrity issue. I'm going to restore the important edits to The Third Jihad and provide additional explanation in order to further protect the edits from unfair removal. I ask that you take a more objective approach going forward. Thanks

Update: True, I'm a novice editing wikipedia and thanks for the suggestions. You're right that I should have added sources which I've now done. I still suspect there was (conscious or not) bias in the editing based on what was deleted, which I can explain if necessary. However, I will delete my statement in my above post about "administrator integrity" if my new edits are treated fairly. Thanks for the note. Gothamwriter (talk)

Aspersions + sources

Hi, Gothamwriter. I see you registered this account in 2006, but you have only made some 30 edits since that time, so for practical purposes you're pretty much a "new" user. Perhaps you're not aware of how much the Wikipedia community frowns on casting aspersions on another editor's integrity without evidence. The fact that "others have complained about the objectivity of [Doug Weller's] edits of entries related to radical Islam" shows nothing; all admins, and certainly all long-time admins like DW, have had their objectivity impugned by extremists from all conceivable sides. Being accused of bias comes with the job. Before you raise something as "an administrator integrity issue", please be prepared to adduce some evidence for your accusations. What you need to support your edits to The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America is sources, not personal attacks. Don't remove well-sourced content because you don't like it; feel free to add other well-sourced content, that you do like. P.S. Please sign your comments on talkpages, including your own, by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end. That will be magically transformed into a signature + timestamp by the software. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC).

True, I'm a novice editing wikipedia and thanks for the suggestions. You're right that I should have added sources which I've now done. I still suspect there was bias in the editing based on what was deleted, which I can explain if necessary. However, I will delete my statement in my above post about "administrator integrity" if my new edits are treated fairly. Thanks for the note.Gothamwriter (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So long as we attribute the SPLC it has been agreed that we can use it as a source. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You really do need to read WP:NPOV. And WP:AGF. And it's true I get called anti-Islam and anti-semitic at times. Always by bigots however. It goes with the territory of being an active editor in related fields. You might want to look at my user page to see some of my roles on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

D/S Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

–dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you sending me this? Gothamwriter (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)