User talk:Hereisnowhy

September 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to George Weigel has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: George Weigel was changed by Hereisnowhy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884552 on 2016-09-08T02:19:40+00:00.

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 with this edit to George Weigel. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question/comment on my talk page, I wrote the following:
 * No they are not. They are your negative interpretations of his opinion, not necessarily a fact. I would say the same thing if your interpretation was the opposite. Wikipedia has strict policies against such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia does not publish negative assertions which could be interpreted as libel. See Biographies of living persons. Also see What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. If you wish to put the article up for deletion, you must proceed under the procedures shown in Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Deletion policy. Also, be sure your are familiar with Notability before you make a nomination for deletion. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My further reply on my talk page: :You are simply arguing for your interpretation. Wikipedia states the facts, it does not make interpretations and go on to characterize people in negative terms. You say that he establishes the fact himself. I read the article and he does not say anything about being homophobic or hating gays. The text you cite may be his beliefs, but it should not contain interpretations, nor do I see that problem in a quick link. I have already sufficiently explained this with links. If you wish to carry this on, discuss in on the talk page and with others who have recently edited the article. After that you can try the deletion process, though I frankly think you can not establish that he is not notable. Otherwise, you can take further steps under Dispute resolution. I am not the other side of this; I am simply applying the principles and procedures in the pages that I have linked above, which I again suggest you read. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another reply on my talk page: :As for the two sentences you cite, they can be tagged with a citation needed tag and if no citation is provided within a reasonable period of time, that text can be removed. See Citation needed. No matter how many ways you try to come at justifying your interpretation and point of view, I am not going to agree your characterization is consistent with Wikipedia policy. As I noted, you should take this up elsewhere with others. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)