User talk:SuperDutchGuy

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Party for Freedom
Hello, SuperDutchGuy!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I have seen that you have re-reverted my edit of the above article. This is usually not seen as polite and civil behaviour on the Wikipedia. I have given a rationale for my revert and I have already replied to your posts on the article's talk page. You might want to deal with my thoughts and advice before reverting. Please try to be a bit more careful with the revert button in the future. Generally, Wikipedia is a place where a huge number of editors are trying to co-operate and to find the best and most acceptable solution. Therefore, it is in most cases impossible to consider the personal observations of one single editor, and conclusions merely based on own studies and comparisons (this is usually called original research ("OR"). On the other hand, the pasic principle of Verifiability requires references to reliable sources. The most reliable sources, especially in controversial questions, are mainstream scholarly works and publications. Contents with reference to reliable sources as specified usually succeed in being accepted by a great majority of Wikipedians. Therefore your edit (removing content verified by scholarly sources; replacing them by content based on "original research") has been reverted. I hope for your understanding. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again.

Please try to abstain from Edit warring. If you cannot push through your personal view, this is not a reason to use the revert button. It should be reserved to removing vandalism or obviously unfounded edits. This is not the case in the edits you have reverted in the above article. You claim there was a discussion going on. Honestly I cannot call this a discussion. You have not gone into the other side's argumentation at all, but rejected it as "nonsense". This is not what a discussion is supposed to be, in my opinion. I do not want to impute anything to you, but do you see the possibility that you might have difficulties with being neutral in this subject? I have read on your user page, that you call yourself a supporter of this party. In some cases this could lead to a Conflict of interest. Warm regards --RJFF (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)