User talk:Foodforthought22

April 2020
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

IMDB
Please see Reliable sources/Perennial sources - we shouldn't be adding it as an external link. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Blanking of a large part of Accuracy in Media
This was unacceptable. Your edit summary "the section had many dead links and many were not NPOV or considered reliable under Wiki guidelines" shows a major lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be accessible on the net, they simply have to be identifiable so that they can be verified somehow. We also have WP:DEADLINK. Articles should be NPOV, we expect sources to have a point of view. See WP:BIASED. And unless you've edited a lot with other accounts or IP addresses, there is no way that you could know what sources we consider reliable in such detail.

Now that you've been reverted I expect you to go explain yourself in detail on the talk page. Your major deletion of sourced text could be considered a breach of the discretionary sanctions mentioned above, and a second such could lead to a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I apologize for the misunderstanding. My intent was to begin to improve how some of the content is presented. The "controversies" section has a few entries that really don't seem like controversies based on the information that is there. I was thinking that it might be more accurate if the information was put into two sections: a "positions" section, describing the various positions AIM has taken over the years, and a "criticism" section, describing the criticism other groups and individuals have expressed about AIM's positions. Let me know what you think about this--I would appreciate your feedback. Foodforthought22 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We prefer to integrate criticism, but this really need to be discussed on the talk page so that other editors can join in. Doug Weller  talk 17:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure if you noticed, but I posted on the AIM talk page and wanted to see if you had any feedback. Thanks! Foodforthought22 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)