User talk:JGoldwater

Welcome!

Hello, JGoldwater, 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 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Y not? 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Thompson

First of all, do not edit war. Edit warring does not help, it only causes stress. I have made that mistake before, so I know it does not help. I have not looked at the nature of your edits to the Fred Thompson article but policy says that bio's of living people says that article must be sourced with reliable, verifiable resources, must be NPOV, and must not have original research. If your edits do not meet all of these things, then it can not be in the article. To verify what I said, you can take a look at WP:BLP. I hope I helped. Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I won't revert to the version that was in place when protected. This would imply a "endorsed" version for which there is no such thing. You should address your concerns on the talk page of the article and to both BigDT and the admin that made the edits, perhaps on their talk pages as well. Participating in the discussions there will do much more in the long run. I am remaining impartial to the content (what is "good" or "bad") to prevent any conflict of interest and because I don't care. Once the issues are resolved, which they nearly seem to be, I will un-protect. If you get involved in the discussion and raise your issues, you can help achieve consensus on what needs to be done. MECU≈talk 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made zero edits since the article was protected. The fixes made by the other admin were all unrelated to the dispute - a spelling correction, removing spam, delinking an article that didn't exist at the time, and adding a link to the commons page. You are not welcome to use that article for spamming links to non-notable blogs. That has nothing to do with POV or with LifeLock. If and when the blog becomes notable (meaning, it has media recognition or official recognition), then it is appropriate to consider adding it. As of now, it is linkspam and will be treated accordingly. There is a proposal that seems to have early acceptance that the article can simply have one sentence about LifeLock which will link to the newly created LifeLock article. This is a compromise between your version and those of us who do not believe that it is notable to mention one of probably hundreds of advertisements that Thompson has done as a part of his media contracts. --BigDT 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others. Please do not upload images unless you are the copyright holder (ie, a photo you took), the image is legally not subject to copyright (such as an original work of the federal government), or the author has explicitly released the image under a GFDL-compatible license. Wikipedia uses images under a claim of fair use in certain cases, none of which are applicable when dealing with images of a living person. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. Thank you. --B 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hello JGoldwater, thanks for editing the Mitt Romney page, but please be careful about adding POV information to the page. Just because it's true, doesn't mean it needs to be in the web page. It's a well-known political image advertising trick to add in personal details like "sweetheart", "met in high school", and "went steady" to evoke good feelings about a politician. I just want to be clear that Wikipedia is not a place for edits such as these: just the facts, and in a WP:NPOV tone.

Also, it would be helpful if you discussed changes before committing them, and especially before reverting other editor's reversions. It's more civil, easier for everyone, and you're less likely to be blocked again. Edit summaries like "I'm keeping all the Old Info" are clear illustrations of a failure to assume good faith by other editors. Best, Pro crast in a tor 08:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 3rr on the Mitt Romney page. Please don't go over. Cogent arguments on the talk page go a long way. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were all different from each other. I took into account the objections raised by one person to try to find a middle ground. Meanwhile there are two people reversing every modification I make without providing explanations. --JGoldwater 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]