User talk:Taratwilight


 * }

Steven M. Greer
Hello, I'm Ronz. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Steven M. Greer seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is difficult to accomplish, and there's a huge amount of guidance in Wikipedia (some linked above) on how to go about it. When it comes to articles about living people, it's even more difficult because of the higher standards expected from such articles. At the risk of oversimplifying how to approach these problems, I suggest finding sources that are both independent and reliable that demonstrate the information/event is important with respect to his entire life's work. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD
Hi! You are new here I see. You should read WP:BRD. In short, what it says is you make bold edits, someone else reverts them, then you discuss. You had the cart before the horse in your recent edit summary. There is no onus on anyone to talk to you before reverting or changing your edits. The onus is in you to talk about them before putting them back. If I can help you with any other questions (I don't care to get involved in your edit disputes, tho), feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I am new here and attempting to catch up with the many policies ASAP. One policy I noted was "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording."  Based on that, I did not understand why another editor would delete everything with no specific examples of where he sees me failing to be neutral or even attempting to change the wording that he finds a problem. It has been many hours of work that are just gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratwilight (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 September 2012‎
 * Hi. Firstly, when you post on a talk page, please sign your entry by typing four tildes ( ~ ).  I fail to see where you got that someone has to talk to you before reverting your edits from what you quoted.  If I may make a suggestion, you should slow down and do simple things until you have enough time to catch up to some of the rules around here.  Look at the links in the template that is at the top of your talk page.  Also, your work is still here---nothing ever goes away on Wikipedia. Click "History" on the article and you will see that every change is still there.  I wouldn't start putting it back, tho.  You should enter into discussion about it.  It appears most of your material was sourced to Primary sources.  That is not what Wikipedia is looking for.  Wikipedia reports on what others have said about a given subject.  You need secondary sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc.  Again, I cannot stress enough how important it is to look through the material linked on the template at the top of this page. I am going to leave you an invitation to a place where you can get simple answers to the complicated questions reading the stuff above will leave you with.  Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't take any of what has transpired this morning personally.  BRD is just how things work around here.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)