User talk:Jasonzengerle

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to The New Republic did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please be advised that removal of large pieces of text or information containing sources is only acceptable through talkpage activity, whether that mean obtain a concensus or simply discuss and agree among those having taken interest. Please also be aware that if edits of this nature persist then you may be blocked from editing in future. If your purpose is to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All right. If you are the subject of a real life attack, I accept your position. The very first thing you need to do is explain your proposed edit on the actual talk page and see what replies you get. If you wish, I will make a contribution too looking at the topic from as objective a position as I can. But as you are the subject in question, you have a better weapon in the struggle which is the truth. I admit that to me, it did look like an act of vandalism so if you go back and revert my revision now, I will not restore the edit; however, your best bet is to replace the information with actual sources that prove your point, no doubt you can find some. It's not that I worry but many others patrolling Recent Changes and admins don't generally appreciate mass removal of longstanding text backed up only by a comment in the summary box.
 * Why don't you restore your original edit but atleast make some other changes to the whole article so that you are seen to be taking an overall interest rather than pushing a POV by removing chunks. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well all right, as you are genuine, I don't have a problem. Do note however that some other editors may take issue if they stumble across the edit, especially the original author. If you have any problems there, especially if you find yourself in an edit war, alert me on my talk page and I will try to help out as best as possible. Regards. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted the edits once. I will keep an eye on the page over the next 24 hours or so to monitor the activity. Clearly I will see that no "novel" editor comes along just to restore the information with no other intention of being an editor here; no single-purpose pushing. However, if established users get involved, especially admins, I won't be able to be so assertive as they would clearly be acting in good faith. In the meantime, I would strongly advise you to be bold and edit the page yourself - add sources, chop and change bits, establish yourself better to raise your own profile and not appear to be one who simply appears whenever it is time to restore a certain revision. You've done very well so far in discussing this affiar. To that end, I will support you as far as is practical to do so; I'll make sure that whatever happens, a compromise is reached and that version we are removing does not stand in such shape. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, before Seafood.mama gains any credibility as an editor, he's going to have to earn it first by proving he is a Wikipedian and not some POV-monger here to push one policy. I will see about getting the page locked to non-established users. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Republic
Hello Jason. User:Evlekis has brought the above issue to my attention, and I have protected the page from editing by new editors for the next week. In these kinds of situations, one thing that is typically done would be for you to send an email to the OTRS team at Wikipedia, from an email address that helps to confirm your identity. It would be kept private, of course. There are instructions at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Thanks. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I took some more time to look at the section of text you removed, and the sources used. I wanted to say, for the record, that I agree with you that it should not be in any Wikipedia article, at least not with those dubious citations. I say this as an administrator who is familiar with the policy on biographic information about living persons, which supports removal of any poorly sourced contentious material. Sincerely, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

New Republic sockpuppet
Hi Jason, note that the user with which you are at odds appears to be a sockpuppet of the user that originally added the questionable material. A sockpuppet investigation has been filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Dubious.achievement. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)