User talk:Hjurgelis

June 2013
Hello, I'm Boogerpatrol. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chick Tract seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Boogerpatrol (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
replied to your concerns Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Chick tract
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 03:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Chick Tract has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Chick Tract. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in editing the Chick Tracts page. I agree, there should be a section about Chick's positive influence. However (and I speak as someone who's made over 10,000 edits to wikipedia), there are certain rules that must be followed. The current article does quote his website, but briefly, and with proper references. You are cutting and pasting large swaths of Chick's website (and despite your objection, everything on that website is copyrighted). Also, since all those testimonies are anonymous, they aren't very credible. If you'd like to write about Chick's positive influence, find a credible source, not the author's claim that anonymous people found his tracks to be good. I'd love to discuss this with you further. Czolgolz (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Czolgolz for your offer. I agree and find your comments helpful. I feel for this user's concerns recently left at my talk page, and agree that it can be daunting as a newbie when veteran editors seeminly run roughshod all over you (I'm quite new myself). I also think Czolgolz is on point with concerns from the WP policy standpoints though, and explained them well. Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)