User talk:Jimmyawesome

Reposted valid criticism

Your criticism, as with the other changes you've made to the NavyField article, lack any references and are biased. Please change them in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines (things such as referencing your sources and a neutral point of view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coshoi (talk • contribs) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Just because a section of the article is biased (and obviously others have missed that and failed to correct it) doesn't mean you should add further rants to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for expressing your own opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coshoi (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Help me understand how you can let obvious biased statement stand yet you feel compelled to delete my, so called, biased statement?"

I left the other biased statements stand because I didn't have the time to fix them yet (hitting and undo button takes much less time than formulating ideas and looking for references for them). Although it's Easter and we have a few days off, I'm swamped with work.

"Help me understand how you percieve these statemenst of fact as a rant."

As I said before, this is why I consider those 'statements of fact' as rant:

- no references: you did not provide any external links to other people that have the same opinion or to proof of what you say. You simply claim that is how it is without proving it, which is why I consider it to be your opinion.

- an improper tone for an encyclopedia ("TNF's modus operandi would make Heinrich Himmler proud") which, in the case of the example I've provided, was also biased. This style can be found throughout the entire section.

"Help me understand how you formed a bias by claiming that what I posted was opinion. Help me understand how you can appoint yourself the arbitor of what is opinion and what is fact."

I did not provide a link to the guidelines of writing a Wikipedia entry, therefore I did not reference my claims that what you wrote is biased. That's true. I assume however you have read them already but I will provide you with the link if you wish. Regarding me being the "arbitor of what is opinion and what is fact": see below.

I will undo your most recent change once again because it bears the traits of vandalism, for the reasons I have posted above. If you still believe that they are correct and, most importantly, belong on Wikipedia, then undo my change and put it back on. If you do so, we'll contact an Administrator who pretty much is the only one who will decide if your entry is vandalism or not. If it is, I would ask you to stop posting it (in its current form) and instead help correct the rest of the article (maybe those two paragraphs you've pointed out). If it isn't, you have my apologies and I will no longer undo your work. I do not contest what you say (although personally I've not had trouble with TNF), but how you say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coshoi (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

HOPEFULLY, I HAVE PROVIDED THE PROPER CONTEXT TO MY STATEMENTS AND HAVE EXCEEDED YOUR EXPECTATIONS.

Oh yes, it's much better. While not perfect (what is?), I don't think it can be considered vandalism so I won't undo it. Thanks for fixing the other paragraphs as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coshoi (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)