User talk:Bjames50

Welcome!

Hello, Bjames50, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Leland Yee does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dave Dial (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

So quotes by person can't be used(Moved from DD2K's Talk page)
Thank you for undoing my addition, which was properly quoted and referenced and had no point of view, you decided it wasn't neutral. I suspect that this has more to do with your own POV than the integrity of wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying the political stance of the entire site. Go ahead and delete my account, I won't be contributing, editing, or visiting in the future.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjames50 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Bjames50, please allow me to explain the reasons why I reverted your edit. It's not that a notable persons words cannot be used, but rather that one can't cherry pick certain quotes or documents and come up with a conclusion that doesn't exist from a reliable source. That's called original research and synthesis This is especially true on articles concerning living persons. Try not to be discouraged, most editors are not well versed on these guidelines when they first start editing Wikipedia, and I can tell by your edit that it was in good faith and an attempt to make the article better. In any case, that explains the first portion of the problem your edit had. The other portion was that the 2nd website you used(stopsb249) is not a reliable source, most especially for a living persons article. I'm sure if you familiarize yourself with this guidelines you would agree with the revert. I hope this helps explain the reasons your edit was removed, and that you decide to stay and contribute. You can answer me here on your Talk page, I have any page I edit automatically on my watch list and will see any reply. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. The statement above which I contributed is partisan and very much paints Yee as a the savior of all CA. There was no cherry-picking. You could have removed the final sentence and the ref to stopSB249, but the rest is straight up FACT. This bill is soley generated to get favor for Yee in an upcoming bid for Federal office or another run at Mayor of SF. I don't know where you live, but right now I am in the middle of this trainwreck. Yee has as much as admitted in the statement you pulled that there is no "loophole", he made similar testimony before the assembly public safety committee. Even the Anti-gun Brady Campaign said the bill as such needed amending and accomplished nothing. As previously stated the Wikipedia is not neutral on this issue, please just "man up" and admit it.