User talk:Amargosamountain

Welcome!
Hello, Amargosamountain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Loudness war. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to AMBER Alert, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You hijacked the lede with something full of weasel words (see WP:WEASEL) and misconstrued refs. Take it to talk per WP:BRD Meters (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Meters. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Messages for Meters should be left at User talk:Meters. However, if you are having a content dispute, that should be discussed at the affected article's talk page.'' John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Four things you did incorrectly with those posts:


 * 1) They were on my user page, not my talk page or the article's talk page.
 * 2) You left them at the top of the page rather than the bottom.
 * 3) You didn't sign your posts.
 * 4) Don't yell by using caps and exclamation marks
 * Please read WP:TALK
 * As for your complaints, swooping in and adding a new opening paragraph to the lede of an article that dumps all over the subject is not a constructive edit.
 * You say that you didn't use weasel words, didn't misconstrue sources, and fixed a major hole in the article. Not from what I read.


 * 1) We already have a section in the article that deals with the issues you raised. It's better written and better sourced than your new material. If there is anything new in what you added that is not already covered in the Controversies section that is where it should be added. So, no you didn't fix "a major hole in the page."
 * 2) Did you read WP:WEASEL?. "many have suggested scrapping the system" That's weaseling. Who exactly? You sourced that claim to an opinion piece on a blog. Reading the source shows that it does not mention anyone suggesting that the system be scrapped other than perhaps the blog writer, and even he doesn't put it in those bleak terms. He simply says that he disagrees that "the system is better than nothing; that it’s inexpensive to run; that even if it’s not always effective, the chance that it might eventually save one kidnapped child’s life makes its continued existence worthwhile." And more importantly, he goes on to say "we need a better community alert system than the one we’ve got." Improving it or replacing it with something better is not the same as simply scrapping it. So, weasel words, an opinion piece as ref, and one that does not even back up the claim.
 * 3) The direct quote in that sentence is also misleading. A direct quote from an opinion piece without any backing is nothing but the opinion of the writer. There are no direct facts in the source to back that up. We cannot tell where the writer got that information. He's writing an opinion piece and he mentions various articles and studies, but that information is not attributed to any of his sources. That makes it his opinion or interpretation.
 * 4) Your second sentence isn't much better. "Other critics say it amounts to little more than 'crime-control theater'" What critics? Once again this appears to be weasel wording that is not backed up by the sources. You have three sources, but they are not independent. They are all pointing to work by Griffith or referencing his work. So, actually one critic, not many, and none of the sources that I can see actually contain the direct quote you used. Meters (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)