User talk:IsleofPatmos

Hello, IsleofPatmos. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, IsleofPatmos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IsleofPatmos. You have new messages at IsleofPatmos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Now this page is protected with the same content. I wrote in the Talk area my reason for why the article from National Catholic Reporter should be removed it is condemned by Catholics as being a known distorter of facts with politically driven biases. Wikipedia is a non-profit entity and from what I understand, is not wanting to be used for malicious purposes. I don't have time to master Wiki tools and Wiki edits please fix this for me. Thank you. Anyway, Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license, Did the person who post, have the rights to copy text from other webites? It should be deleted for that reason.IsleofPatmos (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Deal W. Hudson

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Deal W. Hudson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove article tags from articles without a good reason. Please do not put personal commentary in articles. If you feel the article should be deleted (which is unclear from your actions), nominate it for deletion properly via Proposed deletion or Articles for deletion. The nomination should state the reason for deletion (e.g. attack page) in the proper form. If you need help, ask for it. This a problem page, but there are right ways and wrong ways to deal with it. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Deal W. Hudson

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Deal W. Hudson. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to the page is copied and pasted from http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/about.html, which is a copyright violation. The infringing text will be removed. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing articles

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Deal W. Hudson. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please note that a Wikipedia article needs to cite reliable published sources independent of the subject. Citations will have to come from the reputable press, and Hudson's press is not flattering. Finally, Wikipedia articles are based on a neutral point of view, not necessarily the Catholic point of view. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal W. Hudson – again

If you want to work on the Deal W. Hudson constructively, you can help by adding biographical content based on what reliable sources say about Hudson. It is not acceptable to say that Hudson is an important man without backing it up. Hudson's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia comes largely from the controversy he has caused. The first thing you can do help verify beyond a reasonable doubt that the blog link really is Hudson. Then we can use it as a primary source for non-contentious information. If you don't like National Catholic Reporter, please cite a source the supplies background information. Finally, please note that the article will be neutral, neither an attack page nor a soapbox for Hudson. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more time on copyright infringment

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text you just added was copied and pasted from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E4D91E3FF93AA2575BC0A9629C8B63. Persistent copyright infringement is grounds for getting blocked. Please cite sources, compile facts, and write in your own words. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infringing text from InsideCatholic.com and nytimes.com has been removed. And one more time: sources connected to Hudson like InsideCatholic.com should not be used for self-serving statements. And once again, please write in your own words and respect Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and no original research. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on Deal Hudson

I've started a new discussion thread on the Deal Hudson page. Please engage in discussion there and try to acheive consensus before re-editing the page. I think the edits in question are in violation of our guideline about articles having a neutral point of view. Best, David in DC (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit-war. I've sought a third opinion. Best, David in DC (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Deal W. Hudson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Deal W. Hudson was changed by IsleofPatmos (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-10-30T10:32:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why'd you blank the page? I thought we'd gotten it into a shape we all could live with. I'm flummoxed. Please discuss, on the talk page. I really think we can come to consensus. But blanking the page is definitely not the way to go. Come, let us reason together. David in DC (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Deal W. Hudson constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Sionus [talk] 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking the page. That kind of behavior can get you blocked. You're also skating on the edge of the "three-revert rule" WP:3RR. That can get you blocked. So can edit-warring. Please ratchet back your behavior and take a few minutes to count to ten. I'll respond to your comments on the talk page in due course. But blanking the page is a red flag around here, as are violating the 3-revert rule and edit-warring.David in DC (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Deal W. Hudson. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. JodyB_talk 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Deal W. Hudson, you will be blocked from editing. Badgernet ^Talk 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JodyB_talk 16:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post this before you got blocked, but was a little late. Anyway, here's what I tried to say:

Please, Please, Please stop. I do not doubt your good intentions, but your tactics are on the verge of getting you banned. There are dispute resolution mechanisms besides the 3rd opinion I asked for. Please research and use them. Please stop what you're doing. If you learn the rules, you can be a great contributor. But if you flout the most important ones, early on, you make the path toward becoming a great contributor infinitely more difficult. Knock it off, I beseech thee. David in DC (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to like you David :) I am just frustrated because I do not know WIKI and I have never worked so hard to try and get a fair Biography written on a person. This campaign to destroy this person has been quite aggravating.... and against Wiki principals.... the only thing easily available to me as references were negative. As a Wiki newbie it seems that I could never "get it right"! I am still quite convinced that this Biography will no longer be interesting after Tuesday. (until the next Election cycle) I just saw red today when once again I went to the Biography, that I thought was settled and my balancing contributions had been deleted. You might think that I was upset because of some high opinion of Hudson, I am upset because we are 5 days away from an election and people are wanting Hudson silenced or smeared for something that happened 14 years ago who is standing up for morality and the protection of the unborn and Obama with all of his ties to ANTI-American ideologies gets a 30 min infomercial paid for by other people's money to say whatever he wants. Oh my God Bless America! Needless to say, After I calmed down, I could see that you did incorporate my thoughts into the piece. There is no WIKI award high enough to give you for the Model behavior you displayed. Thank youiop (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a line added to the first surfacing of the 10 year old incident. It was politically motivated because Hudson put the light on the fact that Kerry was Pro-Abortion and Catholic and then abracadabra the 10 year old incident is surfaced. It is in the articles but the link is not clearly articulated --- media bias or cya reporting. I called it what it was. It was then labelled failure to be neutral...?iop (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says you're blocked temporarily. I've only been blocked once, and it expired in an hour. But all I was doing was arguing disruptively and tendentiously with a revered editor. Your block may last a little longer. I honestly don't know. But blocks are definitely supposed to be only for preventing disruption. They're not supposed to be punitive. My guess is that if you wait a day or two, and then follow the unblock advice above, with a statement that you'll look for reliable sources for anything you insert, you'll be back on board. I'd endorse it.

The key is that, even if it's obvious who "surfaced" the stories, or what their motives were, you can't say it yourself. You can't draw the "obvious" conclusion, or you run afoul of the rules against original research and synthesis. You have to cite a reliable source that pinned it on the Kerryites (or the Karaites for that matter, although the latter seems pretty darned unlikely).

Don't worry about the wiki-drama, and please don't worry quite so much about this article's effect on the election. If this election turns on how Deal W. Hudson is treated on a wikipedia page, I'll eat my shorts. Heck, I'll eat your shorts. :) Cheers. David in DC (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I just figured out how to check. (I'm newer at this than you might think.) It's only a twelve hour block. Don't bother asking to be unblocked. Just come back and never give a reason to be blocked again. David in DC (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I didn't think a WIKI page would decide an election, I was just frustrated by the insistence of keeping a very negative Biography alive on a person fighting for the core American Values while burying their broad media head on an unknown with ties to Anti-American ideologies who could be our next President. iop (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]