User talk:Patriotic

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Patriotic, please make sure you read NPOV, about our policy to maintain a neutral point of view. We want articles in our encyclopedia to represent all sides fairly, what we don't want is people adding links to material that expresses a strong point of view without offering counterweight. We welcome all contributions, but please respect our mission. Wikipedia is not a platform for partisan politics. Thanks. JRM 16:02, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Adding substantiated (link) TRUTH is not vandalism.

There is no counterweight to the truth except lies or omission. The truth is ALWAYS neutral. Those who delete it are cowards and worse.


 * I think Solitude made an honest mistake; at the time he posted this remark, the page was being vandalized by several people. He might have inadvertently included you.
 * Please understand that NPOV is not about hiding the truth; it is about representing all points of view, no matter how silly or wrong we think some of them are. Our job is to represent all sides fairly, supported by facts, but we let the task of determining what is true over to our readers. (For example, I think you'll agree that our article on the morality and legality of abortion represents a balanced view of this loaded topic.)
 * I'll post additional comments on your edits on the article talk page, because that's where they belong. JRM 16:27, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I doubt any "honest" mistake is being made because all my edits are being consistently removed, and so quickly that there is no chance the censor even went to the links, let alone read the substantiating material they contain.
 * I was referring to the accusation of adding nonsense and vandalizing, which is clearly not the case here. And you're right, people shouldn't just revert your edits wholesale because they don't like them. It's proper to discuss such disputed changes on the Talk page instead.
 * When it comes to such a high-profile article like the one on Bush, people have itchy trigger fingers. Don't take it personally. Eventually, we always talk things out, but occasionally it takes some time before people listen to each other. JRM 16:44, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
 * Patriotic, are you reading what I'm posting on the Talk page of the article at all? I'm honestly interested in talking this out, but what you're doing won't help. Also, please note that we have the three revert rule: if you revert an article more than three times on one day, you run the risk of being blocked and unable to edit at all. That's not what you want. Talk it out, don't fight it out. JRM 16:58, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
 * In at least one case people can't go to your links, because they're broken. At the very least, please check that you're posting working links. -- ChrisO 17:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Patriotic, please stop adding broken external links to the "Related articles" section. As others have noted, you are already well past the three-time reversion limit - if you persist you will be blocked. -- ChrisO 17:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Patriotic, I am an extreme liberal, far more extreme than any 'liberal' politician, and the edits you have chosen to make still don't sit well with me. Be careful&mdash;the liberal side doesn't need a Rex071404 of its own. &bull; &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  01:43, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)