User talk:Blessingcloset

Regarding edits made during October 27 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. - auburn pilot   talk  01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you read our policies before continuing. You are violating our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, and if you continue, you will be blocked. - auburn pilot   talk  01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
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. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Gscshoyru 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC) That is not personal analysis that is factual information.

violating/harassment
Please do not keep harassing me. You are violating usage policies of conduct.


 * No, we aren't -- we're warning you that your edits violate policy, specifically, WP:NPOV, and have been reverted. I suggest you read up on the policy and be sure your edits conform to it. Thanks! Gscshoyru 03:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits are factual informational only. The factual information should be updated.


 * Please also familiarize yourself with the three revert rule, edit warring, and vandalism. You are sitting very close to a very long block. - auburn pilot   talk  03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the factual information is to be updated. I am dissapointed in the bully atmoshpere I am seeing. Information should be current and up to date. I could accuse you of vandalism too but I at least respect others ability to make edits. A more productive tone would be appreciated.


 * I certainly apologize if you feel bullied, but your edits are violating policy, and you continue to reinstate them. Your edits to Fox News Channel do not simply update information, but blank some content while completely changing the meaning of other content. A neutral point of view is a requirement, but white-washing isn't the answer. - auburn pilot   talk  04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) We're not bulling you. We're making you aware of policy. Wikipedia has rules for edits. Please, please, read up on the policies we're giving you. But if you consist in your POV'd edits, you will end up blocked. As for factual information... WP:V and WP:RS are some good reading material too. Gscshoyru 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then we have to agree to disagree as the information was incorrect and my edits were to correct it. For example it cannot be stated as a fact that someone does not take drugs as no one can say for sure. So it is more accurate to say that they claim to not take drugs, as THAT is the fact. The fact is that they say it, not that it doesn't take place as no one knows for sure that it doesn't take place. (Per Al Franken example). That is NUETRAL and FACTUAL. And more accurate.

Well I can appreciate the tips regarding the rules but I just think some of the undos are actually keeping the articles in a less current and accurate state and that is dissapointing.

You may want to review the FLAMING section, via wikipedia policies.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)