User talk:Reavis1

Thanks for your unblock request. I haven't spoken to the blocking admin, however the reason you were blocked could be that you deleted the references section, instead of removing the references you considered to be inappropriate. Anyway, I've made some edits to the Jessica Mathews article - could you indicate whether you consider the current version less objectionable? If unblocked what changes would you want to make? PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked. Reavis - what you are saying is entirely reasonable.  However, it looked like you were vandalizing the page because in your first edit, instead of removing material you disagreed with you struck it out ; on Wikipedia you simply make the next version look as you want it to rather than marking it up.  In your second edit, as PhilKnight says, you removed the references section and article categories rather than (as I presume you wanted to do) challenging individual sources.  I suggest you read over Introduction to get a basic sense of Wikipedia editing; you seem to already know something about the policies.  Mango juice talk 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help. I appreciate it. I did in fact want to challenge the references and will read over the basics of editing before making any additional edits to Wikipedia entries. Thank you both. One last question. How can I prevent the objectionable content from reappearing? Reavis1 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to understand this is a borderline situation. If the protests are covered independently in reliable secondary sources they are appropriate material for the article, so long as it is presented neutrally.  You laid out some objections on the talk page, leave some time for discussion and space for compromise so that a consensus can be built.  Mango juice talk 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that this process is already occuring and agree with your recent comments on the discussion page that part of the problem with the content is that the source material is not reliable secondary source material. Again, thanks for your assistance. Reavis1 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)