User talk:Pcvcolin

Welcome!

Hello to anyone perusing my talk page. Please feel free to review it, ignore it, edit it, or in dire circumstances, trout me on it.

In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.

The Following is Just Some Random Crap from Chris, I Have Nothing To Do With It

Hello, Pcvcolin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The contribution in question to which the NPOV policy was raised had to do with prophecies (with respect to the contested Trump / Gorsuch prophecies contribution). The NPOV in pertinent part states, "neutral point of view (NPOV) (...) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In light of the NPOV policy I will add further views published by reliable sources about the Trump / Gorsuch prophecies. The problem I see is that no matter how many sources I add, someone will continue to try to remove the content merely because they do not like the idea of the content appearing at all. Or they will remove the content because they disagree with the idea that it could be the product of divine inspiration as claimed. In any event I will add further views published by reliable sources and repost.

Pcvcolin (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again!

I have pointed out that at least one of the editors who has been altering my content in the last day or so is engaging in violation of Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. This will not be tolerated.

Thank you for understanding!

Pcvcolin (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:AN. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Class455. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Geni have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 07:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again - Again!

I have pointed out that at least one of the editors, and various other persons, who have been altering my content since the beginning of February 2017 are engaging in violation of Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. As I've pointed out previously, this will not be tolerated.

Thank you for understanding!

Pcvcolin (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of fulfilled prophecies. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT

Hello, Chris. Your notice above holds the mistaken assumption that I am edit warring in a manner which obstructs Wikipedia's editing process. Rather than this sort of edit warring, I have simply reverted repeated instances of vandalism. In point of fact, the instances of vandalism that occurred, which I reverted, were not to my own preferred contributions to the page in question, but rather, to the later versions of a page which had evolved well after some editors and other contributors had removed some of the content which I had provided. Rather than reverting those users' changes, I left them intact and only reverted the instances where other users engaged in wholesale vandalism (e.g., where a user dove into the page and simply decided to remove an entire section willy nilly). Thanks for your thoughts, but you are wrong in your assessment. Pcvcolin (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stuff continues

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours to the page Marina, California has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with that?

To Chris T: You seem to be particularly interested in my contributions lately. What's up with that? Don't you have something better to do? Pcvcolin (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. - Brianhe (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]