Hello, Minnie Katz! 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! Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You twice removed material from the Carol M. Swain article, only to have that material twice restored by two different editors. This indicates that the removal is non-controversial. Therefore, rather than simply remove the material again, you need to enter into a discussion about the material and why you believe it should be removed rather than just removing it a third time. (I've reverted your third removal. If you add it again, you'll be in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR rule, which means you can be blocked for edit warring.) You should start a discussion at Talk:Carol M. Swain to discuss your reasons for believing the material should be removed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As warned, your last removal has been reverted as vandalism because you are in violation of WP:3RR. Three separte editors have disagreed with you regarding this removal. If you choose not to discuss this issue, but rather insist on having your own way, you will find yourself blocked. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you appear to be trying to impose your view of how the Carol M. Swain article should read. Your recent edit, with the edit summary How Swain "feels" as a result of a controversy she initiated is not relevant to this profile, which is a reference biography. The fact that her "feeling" is referenced is irrelevant; the content violates the intent of wikipedia as a credible reference too again shows that you feel you should have the final word on what the article says. Wikipedia has a process called WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss): you made a bold change, but another editor reverted it. Now it's time to discuss. I thought you had made progress when you started to discuss yesterday, but now you're back to simply changing without consensus, and that's just now how things are done here at Wikipedia. Please don't let yourself get into trouble over this behavior. When in doubt, discuss! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61, you appear more concerned with process than content. Someone, and not me, is actively monitoring Swain's page and inserting and reinserting material that differs markedly in importance and relevance from the main purpose of the essay, which briefly documents Swain's academic career. The recent "controversy" at Vanderbilt is a very minor event that, IMO, doesn't merit coverage in an essay about an academic with a lengthy and visible career. In past years, outside of her teaching, Swain has started a conservative talk-format television program (for which she sells advertising) with an evangelical theme as a major venture--that is not included in her biography. She has engaged in what amounts to a PR campaign in the conservative media in opposition to a nondiscrimination policy Vanderbilt University, where she works, has for student organizations. Nothing about that appears in her essay, and that's a much more relevant "controversy" than the Islam opinion piece. I think the "Islam" portion of this essay is neither neutral nor balanced and that material added to her profile should be scrutinized by someone other than the Swain operatives who inserted the "Controversy" section, which was yesterday converted to "Views on Islam." I'm happy to bow out, but if you want to police Swain's page, you should also be policing the people who keep adding Swain-serving material, like the fact that she said "she doesn't feel safe on the Vanderbilt campus." That kind of content makes Wiki appear less than credible-which is obviously true. I don't know how to report self-promotional posts, but I suspect you do, and Swain's should be reported.Minnie Katz (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Minnie Katz[reply]
