User talk:172.94.65.21

June 2016
Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Stefan Molyneux seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Todayspatroller (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not disruptive editing and directly represents the beliefs of Mr. Molyneux and is cited as such. Provide a shred of evidence for your removal decisions or I will report your actions as an abuse of power immediately.


 * Well, no. What will happen is your account will be blocked for violating our policies at WP:BLP. If necessary, the article may also be protected. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one last time to explain how adding someone's express beliefs with citation can be considered as disruptive, and will provide you with an opportunity to do so before I am forced to report your actions.


 * Not one, but three different editors quickly noted that your edits were unacceptable. Please feel free to file a report citing any or all of us, and read WP:BOOMERANG as you do so. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The changes were not even up long enough to be critically evaluated. Feel free to give your own draft of the information, but you cannot censor it.


 * There's no censorship involved--I'm not familiar with the subject or his thoughts. But the content you added was mostly your (rather indignant) interpretation of someone else's words, and is unacceptable as WP:OR. It also probably falls under WP:UNDUE. If his statements had received widespread coverage by multiple reliable sources, it may then merit inclusion, but even then the encyclopedia is stringent with regards to biographies of living persons and controversial content. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted every single world that could be viewed as an opinion, even though none of it was. Like I said, feel free to show me an edit you would be comfortable with that does not change the information. Controversial or not, he said every word of it, and there is the video to prove it. For something to objective it must cover even the most controversial aspects of someone. He does not make these viewpoints a secret or he would not have made a youtube video of them.


 * No, I'm done. There's actually a history of discussion of the use of Youtube clips for this article on its talk page, so this is old ground. Best of luck, but the warnings above hold. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)