User talk:AttentiontoDetails

Welcome!

Hello, AttentiontoDetails, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Political correctness has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Political correctness was changed by AttentiontoDetails (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.869731 on 2015-07-21T04:07:44+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Any groups that make such a statement must be unaware of what the amendment actually says. You not only need sources, you need to show that they meet WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of terrorism in left and right wing politics articles

I restored the section on right wing terrorism to right-wing politics as we are not going to censor coverage of a genuine topic just because some people on the right feel it casts taint on them. That is not what it is intended to do and any legitimate concerns along those lines can be addressed by improving the section, I have also argued in favour of a similar short section on left wing terrorism on the left-wing politics article. I see that you tried to add one. Yours was commendably short but too early in the article and not really helpful as it didn't do much to introduce the subject. I assume it was removed for reasons along those lines. You would do better to try again there than to remove the section on right-wing politics again as that looks a lot like WP:POINTy editing. Maybe suggest a wording on the article's talk page first. The key point here is that neither article should either over-cover the terrorism aspect of the subject or ignore it completely. In neither case should the mention of terrorism be used to spread taint over the whole ideology. Giving terrorism too much prominence in the article or putting it in too prominent a place could give that impression, whether that is intended or not. These are sensitive topics and getting these things right is not easy. Suggesting changes on the talk page is the best way. What eventually goes in the articles may not be exactly what you suggest but so long as we can work towards getting something succinct, coherent and fair into both articles then that breaks the deadlock and moves us in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edits on political terrorism:

Your addition to Left-wing politics: "Noticed that the right wing politics had a terrorism portion and the left wing politics did not. This portion is a fact and necessary for all to have accurate information." [21:05, 20 December 2016][1]

Your deletion from Right-wing politics: "Just like left wing politics doesn't mention anything about terrorism it should be in the same uniform. Every time a left wing politics sees addition to left wing terrorism it comes down. So, it is good for a goose it's good for a gander." Revision as of 18:07, 15 January 2017][2]

This is a clear violation of the behavioral guideline, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and you can be blocked for this type of editing.

TFD (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Malcolm Nance, you may be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Do not revert to old versions of talk pages with no edit summary

Do not revert to old versions of talk pages with no edit summary, as you did, here [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]