User talk:Dr. Vancouver

January 2014
Hello, I'm Emarsee. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Fraser Institute. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  █ EMARSEE  03:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Fraser Institute. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.  █ EMARSEE  00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the description of the Fraser Institute as "extreme" is not fair-minded. Provide some facts first before making such claims. regards
 * All viewpoints should be listed, even ones you don't like.  █ EMARSEE  02:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wiki policy, editors must edit from a "neutral point of view" and represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." No where does it say that all viewpoints should be listed. (Imagine the state of most Wiki pages, if that were the protocol.) Your edit describing the Fraser Institute as "extreme" does not meet Wiki's stated policy standards, mainly because your edit does not include enough source information to justify that claim. Thanks for your attention.
 * The claim in question is already sourced, there is no grounds for the removal of this information.  █ EMARSEE  17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The grounds for removal are based entirely on Wiki editing policy, which you chose not to address in your response. The existence of a link does not guarantee a "neutral point of view... without bias." But you're correct about one thing: the edit in question is a "claim" with no factual sourcing. Thus, the "claim" that the Fraser Institute is "extreme" remains outside Wiki editing standards. Unless you can provide facts proving this claim, your repeated edits are graffiti, and nothing more.
 * It's not outside of the standards of Wikipedia, the author who describes the Fraser Institute as extreme is referenced, those are the facts. There is no rounds for this removal as it provides another perspective of the organization. You're more than welcome to find a source that praises the FI and include it in the section, but that does not mean you can remove the claim. It's pretty clear that you have a conflict of interest with the article you're editing, as your edits to date has been all about the Fraser Institute - restoring reliably sourced information is no way "graffiti".

It's clear from your repeated edits, and your comments that ignore Wiki's explicit rules against "bias" and unfair editing, that you are uninterested in following the rules of Wikipedia or respecting basic standards of sourcing and fact.

Hello, I'm --Emperor Zhark (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC), and notice that you're doing the same repetitive editing without respecting NPOV on the Fraser Institute page. Please stop doing this as it does not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV.

Hi, the edits made to this page reflect Wiki policy: editors must edit from a "neutral point of view" and represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias."

February 2014
Your recent editing history at Fraser Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  █ EMARSEE  23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Fraser Institute. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them.    █ EMARSEE  18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

When editing, please refer to Wiki's "neutral point of view" policy, which mandates editors to edit "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." Describing the Fraser Institute as "extreme," without offering facts to support this claim, does not adhere to Wiki policy. Thank you.