User talk:AC83 CO

Regarding your edits regarding banks and the DAPL
I have reverted all of your edits to the bank article and the DAPL and they put undue weight on the issue and can be seen as soapboxing regarding DAPL. Your additions do no belong as the second sentences of the bank's articles. Please review Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before continuing to edit. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs
Please stop inserting content about Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). You seem to be using Wikipedia for commercial publicity which, needless to say, is not allowed. If I am wrong, please give your reasons below. You need to study WP:NPOV carefully before doing any more editing. Wildfowl (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. Just in case it isn't obvious, this news item about DAPL does not belong anywhere in the lede (leader) section of an article on a bank or other financial institution. It is debateable whether it is sufficiently important to include in Wikipedia anywhere. Will you please stop ingoring attempts by other editors to reverse your changes. You are in danger of getting blocked from using Wikipedia. Wildfowl (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I have just read the online article in Yes! (U.S. magazine), and it looks as if you are campaigning against the construction of this pipeline, by trying to get people to contact the banks that are funding it. That sounds like a good campaign to me. However, you are not going about it the right way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning platform. You will just have to find another way of achieving your objectives. Wildfowl (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)