I came across your talk page when I was tracking down a vandal a while ago, and I realized you haven't been given a proper welcome, so...
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Howdy
editHi, and welcome. You look like an intelligent contributor. I agree with most of your edits to reduce POV on Howard Dean. However, please do not add the TotallyDisputed tag to George W. Bush. While the article is certainly not perfect, it is pretty good, not to mention one of our most-visited articles. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Block
editI'm afraid I've had to block you for violating the three-revert rule on George W. Bush. You reverted four times. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states: If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.
Since this is your first violation, I have been very lenient and only blocked you for one hour as opposed to a whole twenty-four. I hope when your block expires you will return to good contributing and observe all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Problems
editHi. You need to improve your attitude. Refering to articles as "trash" and slapping down "POV" and "Factual Innacuracies" markers on articles you don't like, with vague and over-the-top explanations on the talk pages, is not helpful. You seem to have an overly combative tone. Please correct this.
I've been reviewing many of your edits, and they seem to mostly involve wanting to remove any uncomfortable information about political figures. Particularly, in many articles, criticisms about those figures, attributed to those figures' critics, are included, and you seem to think those criticisms should be removed because they are "biased." This desire is inappropriate when the criticism is attributed to critics, not to the article in general, as is the case in most of the articles you've edited.
I suggest you go to the help link, located in the upper left box, where you can find out all about what NPOV is and isn't, what editing by consensus is, how to approach editing conflicts, about assuming good faith, etc. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Holdek (talk) 01:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
You want POV
editI am NOT soliciting help but if you think the GWbush article is bad check out 2003 Invasion of Iraq...I am a bit of an edit warrior myself and hope you continue to contribute but, and I say this as a reminder to myself, be careful.--MONGO 05:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your message to User:Libertas
editI've been watching Libertas' talk page (for reasons which will become clear) and noticed your message about Radicalsubversiv thinking the two of you are the same. I'm not about to go through your edit history to find out where the conflict is, but I wanted to inform you that Libertas is currently under a year-long ban for combativeness, failure to respect consensus, and at the root of it all, being a POV warrior. If you are focused on removing only negative information from political figures, appear to others to be of a politically conservative bent, and you are being combative in defending your edits, then that would explain R.S.'s suspicion that you are a Wikipedia:sock puppet account of Libertas'. (Libertas became infamous for being more disruptive than productive.) If that's the case, I would suggest cultivating a more relaxed attitude to Wikipedia, but that's just me. So long as you don't start calling everyone who disagrees with you "a communist" and part of a "Marxist conspiracy at Wikipedia" like Libertas did, though, you'll show R.S.'s suspicion to be unfounded and you should be fine. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)