User talk:Pco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lijnema 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Multiculturalism

HELp ME

Please do not insert signed (or unsigned) comments into the text of an article, as you did at Multiculturalism. Comments belong on the article's talk page. Contributions to an article are not signed. Try the help pages for editing style, see the welcome message, above.Paul111 12:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


No problem, that was an accident. Pco 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated edits of an article

You've just been here a short time, and seem to be really into editing Nancy Pelosi. Please be aware of the rules about repeatedly changing an article to be the way you think it should be (specifically, WP:3RR). Also, your talk page comment, Pelosi is a hypocrite and there are plenty of sources that prove it. so relax and let someone else put the truth on the page is not constructive at all. If it's not a violation of WP:CIVIL, it certainly indicates that you have a definite point of view that you want the article to take, and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please assume that most of the other editors are simply trying to improve the article (see WP:AGF), and try to work constructively with them. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because I know she is a hypocrite, does not mean that I want or need to lie or advance my point of view. I can prove it with factual information and if the post is going to be unbiased, then facts which happen to show that she is a hypocrite do not constitute an NPOV. They simply let the reader make an accurate determination based on the whole truth, rather than half of the truth. Pco 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not "really into editing Pelosi", but there are several very important things about her that are being left out, apparently it is intentional, since everything I post has been deleted without good cause. Pco 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that many notable things about Nancy Pelosi have been left out. I do not understand why someone would keep deleting the fact that she said "impeachment is off the table". It is notable and amazing that someone would take it upon themselves to determine that no matter what investigations reveal about the President's crimes, she would not allow the system to impeach him? It is very telling. Pco 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The heavily-POV edits you are making to the Nancy Pelosi article violate our clear WP:NPOV policy. "Audacity" and such loaded words are not allowed. Don't make interpretations of content. Please also see WP:3RR. Violations of that policy could lead to your being blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you can remove the sentence with audacity, but why do you keep removing the whole thing? Pco how about the content below under congressional career?
Even before the Democratic Party won a Majority of seats in the House of Representatives in November of 2006, Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table", [4] as if it were solely up to her. Pco 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I just removed a statement you posted for violation of WP:RS. It is unacceptable to cite a blog. If you want to cite an article that the blog shows in full, follow WP:CITE but put the URL of the blog (assuming it is the ONLY on-line source available; you really should try the original source) in the cite.
I did not cite a blog - it was originally the Washington Post, and then a more recent version was found and added later; and the information about impeachment off the table is on another wikipedia article as well - see [impeachment]. You deleted the content on Israel that was factual and cited a source that was not a blog. You are the one who is biased, not me. I simply want to see the truth on wikipedia and not just the good things about Pelosi. If anyone looks back at all the posts you deleted, they will see what I am saying. If you had a problem with a word, then delete the word, not the whole post. I never admitted to having a POV, as you said, I just know the truth and this article is not neutral if it avoids all issues of contention for her.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please also follow indentation rules for talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; it really helps others (and you) see what is going on in the discussion.

I don't know how to use this system completely yet - new user.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice - once you have a reputation as being heavily partisan, you have to do EVERYTHING right or other editors are likely to revert on sight. "Everything" includes (a) using a reliable source and (b) not violating WP:NPOV by misquoting, slanting, or otherwise misdescribing what is in the article. It's best to use one or two sentences taken directly out of the article, changing a few minor words or tenses or rearranging the sentence slightly to avoid copyright search engines. (I personally think fair use allows direct copying of a few sentences, but other editors are stricter.)
And if your goal here at wikipedia is to remove liberal (or conservative or whatever) bias from articles, I suggest going elsewhere; you're going to find that people continually cite rules at you that will get in the way of doing whatever you think is right. John Broughton | Talk 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no goal other than to add to a truthful information source.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


It is extremely rude to just delete someone's post and say POV when the person obviously cared enough to spend time and cite a source. You could just say "change the source/no blogs" or delete the word(s) that you find to be POV. Pco 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I suppose that mainstream media references will satisfy you???

Pelosi plans to continue funding the Iraq War. ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734

Pelosi tells the country that "impeachment is off the table". http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/15638502/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16116357/ Pco 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history. You are obviously not the vandal. Geesh, someone is really defensive. As I said on the talk page, examine the situation before making baseless accusations. Gdo01 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Okay, sorry, but I am having a hard time following what is going on. All I can see is that the thing I posted is deleted and that the comment afterward said vandalism. I will give up now. If you can be so kind as to add my post when you rae done dealing with the vandalism, I would appreciate it. Pco 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/c/o/User_talk%7EPco_1e0c.html"