User talk:70.185.250.195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. Gamaliel 15:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please try to avoid using profanity in edit summaries. Thank you. Gamaliel 05:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your change to the page Talk:Pottawatomie massacre was determined to be unhelpful, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. Royboycrashfan 10:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit summaries

Re your edit summary "try NPOV you fucking idiot", this is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA, please refrain from such in future. --pgk(talk) 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the section you added, the place for disputes concerning the contents of articles is the talk page, not the article itself. Continuing to violate the basic requirements for civiility is liable to end up in you being blocked from editing wikipedia, stop now pleae. --pgk(talk) 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk message

Read WP:CIVIL it explains why your language is unacceptable and in appropriate. Please also read WP:NPA. I agree with you that using weasel words is not a good thing, but the way to resolve that is not to become abusive but to set out your point on the talk page in an intelligent and reasoned manner. --pgk(talk) 10:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV disputed tag to the section of the article you seem to have a problem with and started a section on the talk page to discuss it. I obviously cannot comment on problems you have had in the past, provided the details you provide are within the bounds of NPOV and verifiable (i.e. cited) then quite possibly they shouldn't have been removed. Generally if you find a section you feel has an NPOV problem, either fix it. i.e. Don't delete it, and/or discuss the problem on the talk page. Please also add talk messages to the bottom of talk pages. (You can use the + sign to start a new section) and sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ --pgk(talk) 10:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You might also like to read WP:POINT --pgk(talk) 11:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your current edits are disruptive to wikipedia's purpose of writing an encyclopedia, please stop. If you continue I will have to option but to temporarily block you from editing. --pgk(talk) 11:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your talk message

If you find yourself in a position of dispute with another editor then you can look to WP:DR for advice on dispute resolution, this includes information on how to gain the assistance of an admin if one is required. For some of the problems you encountered an RFC on the article maybe more appropriate if you can't gain the cooperation of the other editors. --pgk(talk) 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It appears that you may have been involved in a dispute over editing, however, edits such as the ones you made to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are considered vandalism. Please consider the measures in our dispute resolution process instead. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OPEX (Corporation)

Don't let the decision of one person dismay you. The article has been created. I suggest you a create a username for yourself. BhaiSaab talk 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "He supports torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners"

Please note the following wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided; Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources; and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. John Broughton 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, you should establish a consensus on an article's talk page before adding potentially inflammatory material. -Elmer Clark 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I linked to facts. All of those senators voted against john mccains amdendment that would prohibit torture. I dont know what else you want.11:24, 23 September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs).
On my talk page, you said:
hey man. you deleted some of my edits for no good reason. all of those senators voted against john mccains amendment that would prohibit torture of prisoners. i dont know what 'source' you want, if the United States congress is not good enough for you.
like i said before, wikipedia is being taken over by thought police who dont care about reality.
When I deleted your text, at Ted Stevens, I said in the edit summary: rv per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material.
Your source for what you added was a BLOG. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow BLOGS to be used as a source, generally, and NEVER for negative information.
You could have provided a direct link to the vote itself (on a .gov page), or you could have linked directly to a newspaper article. Then all someone would have been able to argue is that you weren't correctly describing what the source said. But you linked to a BLOG. That's a violation of wikipedia policy. It has nothing to do with "thought police" or "reality". And if you think that BLOGS are acceptable sources for wikipedia pages, then I suggest you go to the policy pages and try to get others to agree to change the policies. Otherwise, don't use BLOGS as the source of what you add to wikipedia.
P.S. Please observe the following, on your talk page and the talk pages of others: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. John Broughton 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
why should i have to sign anything? i have been using wikipedia for a long time, and one of the points of it is that you can 'tell the truth and run', the facts can stand on their own, the author becomes irrelevant. and yes, be sure i will rewrite every single one of those senators pages with links to 'better' sources, which are basically just harder to read and harder to get to than the 'blog' (which was actually an article written by a freelance author, ie, if youre gonna attack a source, you better attack the facts the source is stating). as for wikipedia 'policy', whence this unelected untransparent bureaucracy? i never agreed to any of this, and i have posted dozens of things to wikipedia, starting about 4-5 years ago. you know, before it was cool.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.185.250.195.html"