User talk:Bushnellmacomb

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. In addition to sourcing material you add, please explain deletion of sourced material in edit summary, since such deletions may not appear constructive. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Matthew Shirk. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Matthew Shirk was changed by Bushnellmacomb (u) (t) deleting 10741 characters on 2009-05-08T17:42:07+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing, point of view
Thank you for your efforts to address sourcing issues, but as you've probably seen your edit was automatically reverted by a "bot" that looks for unconstructive edits. You again removed a large quantity of sourced information with no given reason. Wikipedia welcomes the assistance of everyone in improving its articles, but please be careful that your edits are neutral. It seems that what you are removing is text that is critical of this individual. It's our goal to fairly represent both positive and negative information related by reliable sources connected to this individual's notability...in this case, his work as an elected official. I've glanced at the material you're removing, and it does seem to cite to reliable sources, such as the Jacksonville News and the Florida Times-Union. I am not a Floridian and do not know if there is positive press that could be brought in to balance some of this criticism, but please be careful that your edits to this article are with a purpose to improving its coverage and not promoting a positive or negative view of the individual. If you are in any way connected to this individual or his party, you may wish to view Conflict of interest for some suggestions on how best to contribute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced material
Hi, removing sourced material is considered vandalism and you will be banned if you continue doing it. Please only delete information that is both libelous AND unsourced, see WP:COI for more information. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Matt Shirk. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC) The material you are trying to add is largely sourced to editorials and, in one case, a newspaper's blog reprinting an email. This does not pass the verifiability criteria and is inappropriate for a biography of a living person. In addition, the wording is not [[WP:NPOV|neutral. Please do not add that material again, or you may be blocked from editing. Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also be aware of the 3 revert rule. As you are clearly the same editor as, you have already made three reverts to the article within 24 hours. Reverting once more will lead to a block.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

--Cúchullain t/ c 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)