User talk:24.199.67.217

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. RexNL 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Ann Coulter was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page The Way of the Master on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Amcfreely 17:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you familar with our policy of NPOV? Everyking 04:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kirk Cameron

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckessler (talk • contribs) 04:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Of course I consider this fact. However, I would like to point out that, as you can see on my userpage, I consider myself politically independent. I would also like to point out that you did not provide an edit summary combined with the fact that you are editing from behind an IP, makes me more likely to dismiss you as a POV vandal. In the future, I would suggest that you use the edit summary feature to provide some backround on your edit, and if it would be difficult to fit all of the background into the edit summary, you could use something like this: "Changed Republican to Conservative Republican, as per reasons stated on the talk page," and then post background on the talk page. You also have a history of POV and other vandalism, so you must consider that when making edits. Regards, --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Tim LaHaye, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page, you've had plenty of warning here on your talk page about your violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; thus, this [1] recent addition you made is vandalism because you're ignoring policy. All articles must be written from a neutral point of view. You cannot name-call in articles. In an article about a person, the facts of the person's behavior should be presented in an impassionate and neutral tone, and the readers should determine their own opinion of the subject. In other words, you should say "Tim believes such and such", not "Tim is deluded" --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, consider this your final warning. You have again inserted content that is a violation of the neutral point of view policy (here [2]). You will be blocked if you again insert content that violates this policy. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The other definition is "one lacking in talent or ability". In light of the other edits you've made, I question which definition you meant. Considering this, you may want to refrain from making potentially controversial edits, and instead mention the desired change on the article's talk page and allow other editors to decide on and/or make the change. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that your primary purpose here is to add disparaging and biased insertions into articles. Please take some time to consider your motives in editing WP articles. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Yes, in some cases that includes adding criticisms to balance praise; however actively seeking articles on which to solely add critical material is bad form. Edits such as these two [3] [4] really do not help Wikipedia.

If you are looking for a place to express your viewpoints on topics, please consider using another website that welcomes non-neutral points of view. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adding criticism is sometimes appropriate when an article is top-heavy with praise. However your edits thus far have largely been unconstructive. As you can see above I'm not the only one that thinks this.
A factual criticism of someone's work might be an appropriate insertion. Someone that essentially just name-called is not [5] . --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)