User talk:Bigtothebone

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Bigtothebone, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for experimenting with our encyclopedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.

Here are a few 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NcSchu_(Talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Bob Herbert. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Please do not add this information again without providing proper references that can back up the claim that this represents a relevant 'error' in this person's career. All people have a right to his/her own opinion and have the right to make a mistake. Wikipedia does not represent a place to sensationalize every error a person makes. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what 'source' means. The fact that an administrator, one who has been here much longer than you and knows the Wikipedia policies inside and out, removed it too proves you are oblivious to the official policies. All the 'sources' you have provided say is that Herbert said those words. Great. What they don't prove is that they have any of the significance you're trying to say they do. There's a difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Secondary sources prove relevance and significance. You haven't provided this and that's what counts. You have also completely ignored discussions and requests to discuss this topic and instead throw out meaningless reasons. You don't know what my political bias is, but there is clear bias in what you are adding as it serves only to bash this journalist, who wasn't even acting as a journalist but as a commentator in the discussion. You have no basis for the inclusion of these and I am well within my authority to remove it on the facts given here and elsewhere that others agree with. You stand alone in this and yet you choose to violate numerous policies to keep the information on.

From WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement."

From WP:BLP: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."

From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

I have placed a template on the page requesting dispute resolution. Any attempt to remove the template will be met with immediate reversion. Removal of templates without proper discussion and consensus is vandalism. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now I hope you are happy with what two users (including myself) have done to the information. We did not erase it, but we shortened it (as it gave undue weight to the information) and removed your conservative biases. Despite still finding the section pointless and insignificant, I am happy with the section as it currently stands. I request you do not edit this section without first discussing the changes on the article's talk page as is standard procedure for controversial material on this encyclopedia, and something you should get used to if you wish to continue editing here. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Herbert

Give it a rest, please. Until you provide sources that establish that this incident is more notable than anything else he's ever done, it should stay out. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative Action

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Affirmative action. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a clear violation of the three revert rule, of which you were notified above. I encourage you to revert yourself and bring up your concerns on the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of twenty-four hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]