User talk:TeaParty1

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Tea Party protests do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the leadership of the national organization is not spam. Your removal of it seems abrupt and vandalistic. TeaParty1 (talk)

May 2009

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Tea Party protests. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a network news channel, which is reliable. TeaParty1 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Tea Party protests. Thank you. Please fill in edit summaries even for "minor" edits. Nuβiατεch ^Talk 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of user name may be inappropriate

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your user name implies a connection with Tea Party protests, an article that you recently edited, and so the name may be inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. Please considering changing it to a neutral name (see here for instructions). Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a name change is a solution to conflicts of interest? I don't think so. All you're doing by changing the name would be to camouflage the conflict of interest, and even then only barely. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, TeaParty1, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Editting of related articles with this name. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Morenooso (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Your editing is also being discussed in the Conflict of Interest noticeboard [1]. Brothejr (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editing has been very straightforward and uncontentious with the exception of the fact that I took issue yesterday with an attendance number for the Tea Party protests being used as representing total national attendance when the source itself noted that it included only half of the event's locations. My edit on that was apparently overruled and I noted my objection on the subject talk page. TeaParty1 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary.

Hello,

The reason I've been calling that portion of the Tea Party protests commentary is because the source provided does not explicitly say that sentence and we cannot say anything that is not covered exactly in a reliable source. This is also covered in the policies: WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SYNTH. Please also take a moment to read: WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Understanding these policies will also greatly help keep down edit warring. Plus, to better gain consensus for edit, why not first discuss them on the talk page and wait a couple days for other editors to comment. Please remember, Wikipedia is not about news and there is no dire need to include information at this exact moment. So taking the time to discuss changes and work up a consensus will always build a much better article with less headaches. Brothejr (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is not referenced? The first states 800 for April and the second 1,300 for July. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Read the policy. I see your point. And I'm sure an article will come out that puts the two numbers together at some point, and we can site that. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely! Plus, I bet there will be a bunch more better written articles we can cite after July 4th. Right now people are trying to document something that hasn't happened yet and does not have many ref's discussing the upcoming event. Plus trying to write anything more on the upcoming event without violating various policies is like trying to dance in a mine field. Yet, after the event, there will be a whole bunch more articles written on the event and then we could write a lot more about the event. That is why I've been saying wait till after the event. Brothejr (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources.

Please remember to only use reliable sources for factual claims. Specifically, we never use Youtube clips as reliable sources. Further, just because a commentator (especially a particularly unreliable one like Michelle Malkin) makes a claim in an interview, doesn't mean it is sourced. Michelle Malkin repeating a dubious claim on a panel show on Fox News does not mean that Fox News "reported" that fact. Far from it. We need verifiability. Also, we never use editorials as sources for factual claims. Please, discuss on the talk page of the specific article if there are any question about sources. Edit-warring won't get you anywhere. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim was not made by any commentator. It was reported by news anchors. It was additionally sourced elsewhere, including another mainstream media source. TeaParty1 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were true (highly unlikely), then you should have no trouble finding some reliable, verifiable, third-party references to support the claim that 37,000 people showed up. So far you haven't found any. Remember, no YouTube, no opinion editorials, no blogs. Reliable sources only. Continuing to reinsert the same non-RS sources is just disruptive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dec. 7 Rasmussen Poll re: Tea Party

Please stop re-inserting the mention of this poll into the first section of the article. Again, you would benefit from reviewing WP:Lede, IMHO. --Happysomeone (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on that. The political view of Americans toward this movement is quite possibly the most important part of this article and warrants lede inclusion. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Rasmussen is a conservative polling agency. It's not unbiased, and biased pollsters are known for conducting biased polls. Sure, it's fair just before an election...204.52.215.13 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect addition of categories

The categories you keep adding to Tea Party protests are for articles about actual elections only, not subjects related to electoral politics. Notice that there are no articles about politicians, commentators, issues, parties, controversies, etc. in these categories. Actually, the category you were adding is primarily an Intermediate Category that holds sub categories (such as [[Category:United_States_gubernatorial_elections,_2009]]). See the other items in the category for a better idea of what this is for. Categories have very specific rules and structures and are used for navigation and organization only. They are not the place for ideological battles as the additions are generally not a matter of opinion (categories which allow subjective additions are usually deleted). I would suggest you learn more about how they work before adding them. And in the future, please don't jump right into edit-warring. If you had simply gone to the talk page, you would have seen a polite explanation of why the additions were incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Tea Party protests, 2009

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username warning added: 2010-05-06

This user has been previously questioned about its choice of name. It is editting articles related to this name and was given a standarized username warning by me today. I have this talkpage under Watch and await a response here. --Morenooso (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have 24 hours from my last posted substitute warning to reply. Otherwise, this issue will be advanced to the appropriate noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? That I should change my username? TeaParty1 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. You have been cited with a similar concern previously. It that your response?--Morenooso (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, TeaParty1, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]