User talk:Ej0c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello {{SUBST:PAGENAME}}! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}|your contributions]]. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- ~~~~ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Bob Ney

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a second notice. Please do not insert heavily point-of-view material into the Bob Ney. I have deleted it twice. Specifically, this is the problematical text:

partisans began leaking bits of federal investigations to the Washington Post and other media. Ney, a Republican in the Democrat-coveted steel and coal territory of Appalachian Ohio, soon became a target of unrelenting media and activist controvery. At this time, federal prosecutors continue the investigation, with links to Ney being officially unconfirmed, but widely circulated in the press and blogsphere.

This entire article is heavily point of view. You just do not seem to have the learnedness to appreciate that fact. --Ej0c 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"partisans"; "Democrat-coveted", "unrelenting", "activist", are all highly subjective wording that is inappropriate for wikipedia.

Eighty percent of this article is highly subjective and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am only trying to make 4% of it more fair to someone who has not even been charged, let alone tried and convicted. --Ej0c 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you still feel like posting this text, please discuss it first, either here or on the talk/discussion page for Bob Ney.

So far, I am the only person to discuss things on the talk/discussion page for Ney. --Ej0c 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to the Bob Ney talk page. But I want to note two things here. First, I think you'll get a lot better reaction from other people (and I hope you want to work with other people - Wikipedia is intended to be a community project) if you point out specific things that are wrong, rather than just complaining in general about the whole article. If your complaints are specific, it's always easier for someone to offer better wording. Second, the proper way to fix a "highly subjective" article is NOT to add offsetting subjective text, as you have done - rather, it's to fix the subjective text, and to add substantive objective information. (Note that I didn't delete the additions to the article about Bob Ney's legislative accomplishments.) John Broughton 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I guess Ney was guilty after all. Who would have guessed? Perhaps you were the subjective one. --The Cunctator 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 ? What has the outcome to do with our objectivity and quest for educational excellence?? --Ej0c 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington

Thank you for your contributions at George Washnigton#Personal Qualities. However, I'm not sure that it's any better as it stands. Would you be interested in working together to make it better? Come to think of it, do you even know if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article? In other words, is it salvagable as it now stands? Let me know what you think - I'll be in contact on the George Washington talk page, or my talk page. If you aren't interested, just ignore this - I will too. --Trevdna 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)