User talk:FactChecker123

February 2013

Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jschnur (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. JOJ ^Hutton 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to politely inform you that my contribution was not a "personal analysis" I merely cited General Clark's statement on video. The quotation does not take a position on the legality of the war. It simply shows a historical account. So what do you think about General Clark's statement? He is a credible person. Attacking 7 countries in 5 years is important information. It's not original research. Why don't you watch his statement (video) and then do some critical thinking rather than removing something you haven't reviewed. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at 2003 invasion of Iraq, you may be blocked from editing. JOJ ^Hutton 03:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Making threats won't help. First you said it wasn't sourced material. I then added two sources, a video of the US general and an academic paper that discusses his statement. You couldn't challenge the sources so you then said (see View History) that I have to familiarize myself with the way articles are written. So your remaining argument became a "style of articles" issue. So can General Clark's account ever be inserted into this page? In some location if not at the top? Or will you always be filtering out important information from a high-level general who to this day is seen as very credible? I await your answer. If his statement can't ever be added in at some location in this article, we should take this to a Wiki admin and settle this dispute. JOJ

First, I never made any comment about sourcing. Second, stop adding my signature to the end of your comments. Not only is it disruptive, but it reinforces the fact that you need more practice editing and you need to familiarize yourself with some basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Your edits are disruptive, not because they can't be cited or are not true, but because you a blatantly adding them to the beginning of the lead which violates the purpose if WP:LEAD. Like I said before, learn how to edit, before making edits. JOJ ^Hutton 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

//

Sure - point taken. So we agree that it can be added but not at the beginning? Thanks for responding. -FactChecker123 28 Feb 2012 11:28 PM EST

Welcome

Hello, FactChecker123! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JOJ Hutton 03:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2003 invasion of Iraq, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Per BRD content should not be re-added until a consensus of active editors agree that the content should be returned to the article. To re-add the content could be seen as beginning an edit war, which is not advised. As FactChecker123 objects to Clark's opinion in the lead of the article, it has now been removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 9/11 Consensus Panel (October 5)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The 9/11 Consensus Panel.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 9/11 Consensus Panel (December 2)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The 9/11 Consensus Panel.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! FactChecker123, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Hello FactChecker123. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The 9/11 Consensus Panel".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The 9/11 Consensus Panel}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TheMesquito^buzz 05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ganser

Hi, I entirely agree with you that appropriate positive reviews of the book should be added to the article. The ones added were (when searched for) found to have been the advertising blurbs from the book. Those have been removed for copyright and spam (advertising) policy reasons. I will look for quotes that we can add that will not run afoul of those policies. I just wanted to give you my thoughts on the revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)