User talk:Firstlensman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello "Firstlensman" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:
- Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
- You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
- Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
- If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, or you can a question to the Wikipedia:village pump.
- I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian -- Infrogmation 17:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. We notice you've been making a lot of strong point of view (POV) edits to George W. Bush. Your contributions are certainly welcome. But on such a widely-read article like this, and on such controversial material, it will not do any good to make those kinds of contributions. They are simply going to be reverted over and over by many users as being unsubstantiated or based too strongly on POV. I suggest you bear this in mind while making further edits. -- Decumanus 21:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This is not a good way to start off at Wikipedia. Rest assured you are not the first person to try to insert this kind of material. It will simply not stand, the way you have written. You need to rephrase this kind of material to be acceptable. Rumors must be reported as rumors, if at all. -- Decumanus 21:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It seems as though that only the negative POV regarding President Bush's service is being maintained here. Snipers have been removing any positive information to skew the entry to make more of a contrast with Senator Kerry's service. Believe me, Senator Kerry doesn't need this "help". If Senator Kerry wants to win the next election, he should start proposing solutions to all the "problems" he's been complaining about. Then, we can all get down to an honest discussion about who should be the next President of the United States. Firstlensman 21:45, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
First, I think Decumanus is just trying to point out that we aim at neutrality here: if there are sources for facts, post them on the article's talk page so everyone can see them. A lot of what you're posting has not yet been established as fact. I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia:NPOV. Jwrosenzweig 21:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I can see that you are frustrated and feel Bush is not getting a fair shake. We welcome diversity here. It is not so much the subject but style and phrasing of your edits that is unacceptable.-- Decumanus 21:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig - I have been citing references, but they too get removed. Even ones that were on the page before I started making additions. I have left in the negative POV lines, which by the way are unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo(that has not been discussed on the talk page), given that President Bush released pay stubs and dental examination records from his time in the Alabama National Guard. Why isn't the neutral POV litmus test being applied to the Bush detractors? -- Firstlensman 22:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to say that your edits to George W. Bush have contained some useful material that belongs in the article. I think the problem is that they sometimes get buried under material that's questionable. It's not that we're trying to insert bias; if you'll look at Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 3, in the section entitled "Neutrality dispute of early Jan. 4", you'll see that my last conflict over this article worked in the opposite direction;) Please keep contributing, but bear in mind--you're writing an encyclopedia article about Bush, and it has to be one that everyone--his supporters AND opponents--would concede is fair. Yours, Meelar 05:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Firstlensman, you have come a long way in just a few hours time towards being a good Wikipedia editor. I cannot personally vouch for the truth of your information. Frankly it's not a subject that interests me that much, but I know others care about it. But I see how you come to understand a lot of how this place works, and thus I think you could be a valuable contributor. -- Decumanus 07:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. Meelar 20:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I thought the article on Hillary Clinton could use a look from someone. Care to edit? Yours, Meelar 21:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please read up on the Three Revert Rule, which you have broken on George W. Bush. In doing so you run the risk of being blocked. Don't just edit war, use the talk page, that's what it's there for. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --fvw* 23:58, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Sorry, but it was someone else who kept reverting the article back. I've pointed out in the Talk section the reason for my edit. This other person should have vetted the information that was posted to the article in the Talk section and let the users come to an agreement on what should be posted to the article. Firstlensman 00:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)