User talk:Textmatters

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos. I've noticed that citing political affiliation for media watchdog groups, so long as it is well-established, is standard across Wikipedia. I suppose if you would like to try to support the assumption that those two organizations are NOT left-leaning you will have to acheive some kind of consensus. After all, the Wikipedia articles on the two groups in question cite the groups own description of themselves. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert. Best Regards.--Textmatters (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] 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.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remain NPOV in my edits. Please strive to do the same! :)--Textmatters (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

POV? The organizations self describe as "progressive". I wouldn't think that POV! Is there something else at work here? Please go to the Fox News talk page, threats to ban seem overwrought.--Textmatters (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remember to address your fellow volunteer editors with civility and respect even (or perhaps especially) when you disagree with them. Writing off the contributions of others and making unsupported accusations are not helpful. Specifically, these statements are not acceptable:


 * The article in question is a horrible example of "goal-tending" by a few POV editors and frankly serves as a caricature of the types of articles that give Wikipedia a bad name.
 * The article as it stands reeks of pro-AGW goaltending.
 * AGW IS a religion to its adherents.
 * Please also be aware of the policy WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit heavy-handed, especially in light of what apparently passes for "polite discourse" from those that are rather stridently espousing the as yet unproven idea of AGW and routinely attack personally those that disagree with them. Please don't attempt to own articles. Especially rich is the audacity of calling a comment "unacceptable" which expresses opinion about POV problems with a AGW article and is posted on a page explicitly set up for the discussion of potential POV problems with an AGW article! --Textmatters (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)