User talk:Schmooble

Welcome!
Hello, Schmooble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Yann (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Social Darwinism with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycosys (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You are clearly not interested in the rules of Wikipedia as you have ignored inline instructions not to edit unless consensus is reached on the talk page, removed items and marked them as grammatical, removed quotes and marked them as grammatical, and deleted items with no explanation which were clearly not grammatical.

I understand you have a right wing inclination and do not like seeing for instance Nazism associated with the far right but given they are well referenced items you CANNOT just remove them. There is no reason for you to remove items like peaceful transition and EVERY item i have changed i have explained. I have left many of your items alone that were grammatical corrections - but the vast majority were disruptive edits to advance your POV. Removing warnings from your talk page does not serve your cause either.Mycosys (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very much wrong that i have undone every edit you have made - the ones that were accurate remained whether you had bothered to list reasons for them or not. You are right in that i am not an admin - but i AM a long term user and am following the proper procedure for disruptive edits as i was advised to do by them on IRC seeking help with the issue, Wikipedia is run by users and the warning system is there for that use to try to stop things needing to be escalated to admins. I gather you are young and headstrong but your sureness in your own correctness is misplaced. You need to remember that your personal biases no matter how accurate they seem to you are biases, that is why items need to be referenced. You have also marked a number of edits as grammatical that were not and despite prior warning have continued to remove referenced items without reason. You are right that i was led to review your edits after you removed the PIBBY section with no reason despite there being SEVEN good references and the reasons explained in the page history notes, and after seeing the warning you had been given previously for similar behaviour. If an editor shows a series of destructive edits it is not abnormal to check their other edits do not follow this pattern.

I have posted reasons for every single edit i have done in the page history notes. at NO stage have you attempted to discuss any of them, not in the talk page, not in the page history notes. That is why i have posted repeated requests for you to do so on your talk (as had previous editors) along with reasons for every edit on their history pages. You would also know that i have not reverted all your edits - the ones that are accurate remain (click the 'contributions' link at the top of the page). Your feeling of victimisation is unfounded.

t is notable that this is not the first time you have blanked a section or removed items you had some seeming issue with - on the social Darwinism article you removed a 1,000 character section well referenced and stating that it was the opinion of multiple scholars that natural selection did not imply that social Darwinism was in some way natural or good or followed form it- and marked that a grammatical edit "Fixing style/layout errors". A pattern that has been repeated. You marking sometime as grammatical clearly does not mean it is such.

Your assertion that changing 'peaceful transition' to 'transition' is a matter of neutrality is spurious in the extreme - it is in no way biased to not that a war did not ensue in the ending of communism - it is simple removing a relevant and accurate note as war had been a real threat for decades. This is something you would know if you knew the period at all or had lived through it. Ignoring the fact that the cold war ended peacefully is not removing bias - it is removing neutrality it and removing accuracy. maybe NPOV_tutorial can help?

Your removal of a QUOTE in the Forbes 400 article is not a grammatical edit - it is introducing personal bias and reducing accuracy. It is a quote - changing it to a paraphrasing introduces bias, not removes it. Similarly i have no idea why you made your edit on American Enterprise Institute and removed the referenced not on their position on the political spectrum. This is a simple, well referenced fact. Their position on the political spectrum is not a matter of some form of bias of non-neutrality and is important information - the fact you referred to removing this important information as a 'cleanup' made it seem VERY much politically motivated. If you felt it was not true you should have found other references and then discussed it on the talk page or changed it, not simply deleted it without any evidence or even noting that you had done it.

As already noted in the article history the line in the MKUltra article read 'Drugs and other Chemicals' not 'Drugs (especially LSD and other Chemicals)' - had you bothered to read you would see that you had misunderstood the use of parenthesis. Had the parenthesis been placed as i the latter example you would be correct that it was redundant - but it was not - the sentence sates that they were using chemicals that were not considered dugs - an important distinction. Again removing it is removing salient information from the article.

Your changing of 'other sources' a very neutral and unjudging statement to 'Many sources' - instead a loaded and subjective praise is adding bias to this article. There is no reason for it and it damages the neutrality of the article, no matter what your perception of the organisation or the opinion. It is Wikipedia general policy to avoid such loaded wording in favour of the neutral wording you removed. see WP:WEASEL

Removing 'though divisive' from the 'Rivers of Blood speech' (something which you again gave no reason for) simply removed important historical context form the article. It shows an important distinction between a near universally accepted or disliked politician who was very much discussed and a politician who polarised debate between two factions. It is a very important historical note and unless you can show it was unreferenced (in which case you should add referencing) or untrue (in which case you shod be able to show this is the case) there is no reason to remove it - it does not improve the article in any way. NPOV does not mean points of view should never be described - this article touches on it (though it is assumed obvious in talking about history and i cannot find an article specifically about noting historical points of view - they are history) Describing_points_of_view Your repeated reversion of 'significantly in error' to 'significant in error' is just plain wrong, but since you were so determined to not have significantly i went for 'in significant error' to placate you. In Universe your change of removing just form 'just one of many' did not improve neutrality in point of view, again it removed important historical context. NPOV does NOT mean that you do not state the point of view held by the people in a historical context - it means you do not let current points of view affect the article. maybe NPOV_tutorial can help? or once again Describing_points_of_view.

Your assertion that the milky way is 'a galaxy containing our solar system' rather than ' the galaxy containing our solar system' and your unilateral edit despite the online note not to change without consensus as it had taken some discussion to reach was both ridiculous and disrespectful in the extreme.

In future i would STRONGLY suggest you keep in mind your own personal biases (as we all have to), keep in mind that NPOV does not mean that articles should not show any points of view but that it should show all sides, keep in mind that your grammar may not be perfect and do your best to comprehensively note what you have done in your changes in the edit summary.

I would also suggest before you decide to become overly pedantic or legalistic that it is important to Ignore all rules so long as you get What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means also keep in mind admins and everyone else can still see the warning templates you deleted.Mycosys (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)