User talk:Deaniack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Keith Olbermann. Please always follow our core policies. Thank you. - Mike Beckham 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism warning
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. The specific vandalism I'm refering to is [1] --Alabamaboy 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since you are claiming that the User:HowardDean is your old username, I apologize. It appeared to be a case of vandalism. I've removed the warning above. I strongly suggest you post a note on the HowardDean user page, using the HowardDean user account (if you remember the password), that you have created a new user name. That will make sure there's no more confusion. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits
Hi, you seem to be not using the edit summary to give a rationale for your edits. As such, it is not clear to the other editors what was wrong with the earlier versions, and they are considering your edits to be disruptive. So, please use the edit summary box below the edit pane to give a justification of your edits or the article talk page to have a discussion with other editors even if it is half-controversial. Thanks. --soum (0_o) 05:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] July 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The New York Times, you will be blocked from editing. - Dudesleeper ยท Talk 10:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alec Baldwin
- Stop making junky edits, full of spelling mistakes ("compaired") and run-on words likethis. Skopp 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian Troops in Vietnam
There's been a LOT of discussion on this, not all of it expressing a neutral point of view. Your recent edit is absolutely correct. For more details, look HERE. Lou Sander 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not repeat your edit without getting consensus to do so. Your edit is not only wrong but -- and this, for better or worse, matters even more within Wikipedia -- is contrary to the consensus reached after great reams of discussion. Feel free to re-open that discussion and seek a (new) consensus for your edit. I suspect that doing so would only be a waste of your time, though, whereas I do not foresee your success in a try for such a consensus, so in that sense I do not recommend it. However, don't repeat the edit without getting the needed consensus beforehand. -- Lonewolf BC 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Edit to the Carl Cameron article
Hi, you recently injected tons of wikilinks into the Carl Cameron article. Is this part of any larger organized effort, or did you just feel like that ? You didn't leave any explanation on the talk page. I do not feel such generic wikilinks for words like "liberal" or "Democratic" , "presidential", "white house", year numbers or even month names are helpful, they just serve as a distraction. I consider this edit borderline to spam. Would you please explain on the talk page why you feel such is necessary here ? Wefa (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fox News Channel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Fox News Channel, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
