User talk:Honest Abe2016

Welcome!
Hello, Honest Abe2016, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Byron Cook (politician), have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

March 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Byron Cook (politician), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''Many of the sections you're deleting are cited to independent sources. If there are problems with the sources, you need to explain the problems source by source on the talk page.'' —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's worse than that: your edit removed all the sources from the article. That technically leaves it in a condition to be proposed for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
This page has been hacked with false and libelous information... I have attempted numerous times to correct this and have had it undone back the libelous content. How can we make my edits remain on the page

Please help me with...

Honest Abe2016 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, let's start with the current sources. Based on what do you feel the New York Times source is deliberately misrepresenting Cook? The San Antonio Express-News? There are currently nine sources in the article, many of which are clearly to mainline, reliable newspapers. I find it difficult to believe that all these newspapers are intentionally writing inaccurately about Cook.


 * Second, your version of the story completely gutted all sources from the article. How are we able to verify any of the content if you don't provide sources—and really, they should be independent sources, not just Cook's own website. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at Byron Cook (politician). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You cannot remove sourced information because you do not like it. Read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

I will post a notice at the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get some more eyes on this article. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page
I have moved to the article talk page Talk:Byron Cook (politician) the comments you left there, and your proposed article. That talk page is where discussion should take place to try to reach WP:Consensus about the content of the page. I have posted a message at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which is already bringing other users to help with the page.

There is advice at WP:Biographies of living persons/Help, and contact information at Contact us - Subjects.

On your first point: there is nothing demeaning about "(politician)" in the article title - this is how we distinguish between articles about different people with the same name. There is also Byron Cook (computer scientist), and so the page Byron Cook offers readers the choice. This is perfectly normal and routine, see for example Jack Reed (politician), which distinguishes the Senator from Jack Reed (rugby league) and others.

You wrote: "I will attempt to go through all of Mr Cook's concerns". Evidently you are editing on his behalf, which is fine, but you should make that clear in any discussion (see the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide).

If you can explain what statements are actually false, they can be removed, but statements backed up by sources will not be removed just because you do not like them. If you believe the sources are unreliable or biased, you can explain that and it will be taken into account, but please understand that Wikipedia is not here to provide a notice-board for Mr Cook's preferred biography. This is not "Mr Cook's page", it is Wikipedia's page about him.

You do not help your case by exaggerated language. Editing Wikipedia is not "hacking"; and please be careful about use of the word "libellous", because (in order to discourage intimidation) Wikipedia has a policy that any user who makes a legal threat is blocked until either the threat is withdrawn or the legal action is concluded.

Having said all that, I am sorry that you are having a difficult introduction to Wikipedia, and I hope that discussion can lead to a page which satisfies Wikipedia's aim of a WP:Neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)