Johnnyb.3261

I have noticed your edits you are making to Louie Gohmert. I also have noticed you are trying to evade detection by doing this from several different ip addresses. Be informed, I am informing people about you and will block any attempts by you to insert non-NPOV into Wikipedia. Bias is harmful to Wikipedia.

--Andy0093 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please engage on the talkpage

Please engage on the talkpage before editing without regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I am not trying to evade detection. I am a novice with Wikipedia and I lost my password. If an elected representative is speaking into the public record (Gohmert said these words on the floor of the House of Representatives) he should be held accountable. This is especially true in an era of notably hostile rhetoric toward the President. These comments, regardless of whether you agree, have attracted much national attention because they are characteristic of Mr. Gohmert and the type of inflammatory statements employed by Tea Party advocates. It does not matter whether you classify the journalists as left-wing or right-wing. That's merely your opinion. I have carefully re-written the heading so it is perfectly accurate. If you try to soften it, you are misrepresenting. Mr. Gohmert is clearly associating the President with Muslim extremists. (An unbiased observer might speculate whether he is doing this in order to retain his position of power and privilege). Please do not take advantage of the fact that I am not a Wikipedia expert to distort these comments or censor them. This IS history. Johnnyb.3261 (talk)JohnnyB

Talking points memo classifies themselves as a left wing news source. These comments did not garner the "national" attention you mention they did. Hhmm Salon.com talking points memo and mediaite. Did these comments garner any national attention outside the left wing blogosphere I think not. The terror babies meets notability criteria. The "57 states" comments do not.

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way. Edits you have been making to Wikipedia go back farther than me, so technically you have been editing Wikipedia longer than me, however you have have been only editing one article Louie Gohmert and only doing one edit. Revising the article any time someone removes the quote yet you accuse me of being a operative of Louie Gohmert. Who does it really look like has the agenda here. --Andy0093 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE engage on the talkpage

Please engage on the talkpage on the Louie Gohmert article. There are some serious concerns here. I have noticed you have reverted any attempts to work on this article over 12 times now. Please I am not angry at the edits but your refusal to discuss.

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Louie Gohmert. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bilby (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi - in relation to the above, the general approach where material in biographies of living people is dispute is to try and get consensus to add the material on the talk page, rather than to put it back in and seek consensus to take it out. This is mostly because with living people we can do a fair bit of damage if problematic information is left in the article while it's suitability is debated, so it is safer to leave it out until everyone has worked out where they stand.

Personally I'm not sure if it should be kept, although it may well be fine, but I'd rather see a more neutral title. However, I have removed your commentary about Wikipedia censoring the information - while the quote has been removed in the past, so this is true, this sort of commentary isn't normally included in an article unless it reaches wider (normally media) attention, as it really reflects the process that Wikipedia follows rather than any specific problem. - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia,

Personally, I am an Obama supporter and don't like this congressman's stands very much. However, here on Wikipedia, we are obligated to edit with the neutral point of view in the forefront of our minds. Our job here is not to make this congressman look bad, no matter our personal opinion. Our job is to accurately reflect what the highest quality reliable sources say about him. We don't cherry-pick sources that make him look bad. If you can't accept the basic principle of the neutral point of view, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right project for you. I hope you will stay as an NPOV editor. Feel free to ask me questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen,

I don't understand why you classify quoting statements from the Congressional Record as making "this congressman look bad." He spoke these words on the House floor, not in private company. He WANTED the nation to hear him. As for "cherry picking," please Google "Gohmert." These comments are characteristic. If he indeed goes down in history, it will probably be for this kind of rhetoric. And is it really a FACT that they make him look bad? Other people might think the comments make Obama (the politician you support) look bad. Perhaps that why you are considering censoring my entry. As I have stated before, these comments are historically significant because Rep. Gohmert is an influential member of the Tea Party Caucus who is primarily famous for controversial comments. In fact, inflammatory rhetoric is a significant characteristic of entire 112th Congress. I hope no one will block me from Wikipedia. I've been making small non-controversal entries for years (most recently to the Martin Dougiamis article).