User talk:Immanuel797979
September 2014[edit]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Orson Scott Card. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The cited articles used the term "antigay" in their headlines. We don't change the name of a reference because we don't agree with the content. Meters (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, but in this case it should be made obvious that this is a reference, not present is as a fact.Immanuel797979 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just noticed that I also changed the reference. That was, of course, unintentional.Immanuel797979 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Undone again. We report what the refs say, not what we think they should say. The refs clearly use the term "anti-gay" If you disagree take it to the talk page for discussion. Meters (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, understood; but the page doesn't make it clear that this is the ref's opinion on his views - written that way, it is stated as a fact. Forgive me if this is the 1000nth time this question is asked, but what is the standard approach that Wikipedia adopts to prevent that any opinion expressed by any ref. is taken at face-value? Immanuel797979 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could restate your question at Talk:Orson Scott Card? —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done! Immanuel797979 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could restate your question at Talk:Orson Scott Card? —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, understood; but the page doesn't make it clear that this is the ref's opinion on his views - written that way, it is stated as a fact. Forgive me if this is the 1000nth time this question is asked, but what is the standard approach that Wikipedia adopts to prevent that any opinion expressed by any ref. is taken at face-value? Immanuel797979 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Undone again. We report what the refs say, not what we think they should say. The refs clearly use the term "anti-gay" If you disagree take it to the talk page for discussion. Meters (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Important Notice[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 19:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019[edit]
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Jihad Watch while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)