User talk:Theworldview101

October 2016
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Rob Cornilles, you removed content without adequately 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. Jim1138 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rob Cornilles, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rob Cornilles, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Rob Cornilles page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=742477548 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F742477548%7CRob Cornilles%5D%5D Ask for help])

October 2016
Your recent editing history at Rob Cornilles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please cite a reliable source that says the information was false. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do I really need to have a "reliable source" aka an article to prove that information is false? One could argue the articles sited to slander Robert Cornilles are not "reliable sources." If you look at the sources used against Cornilles, they are from the Democratic party or liberal writers/reporters who can write anything they want to get voters to vote for their candidate. Most of the claim posted on here have never been proven to be correct. When have you ever seen a political campaign ever be 100% truthful in their attacks on their opponents? Here is an article showing that claims made against Robert are false: http://www.broadsidebooks.net/2012/01/30/the-lying-liars-at-the-democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/


 * PolitiFacts shows that the claims regarding his taxes made in this page are false - http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rob-cornilles/statements/
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldview101 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do need to have reliable sources per our policy. And those two sources appear biased, please find a neutral source. -- Dane 2007  talk  01:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, please sign your comments by typing, which automatically changes into your signature. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please tell me if the articles sited on this page are unbiased?


 * http://archive.dccc.org/blog/entry/republican_rob_cornilles_exposed_a_sham_businessman
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/12/republican_rob_cornilles_sport.html


 * This source http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18529-it%25E2%2580%2599s_all_in_the_game.html is a little less biased but the contributor to this page obviously only used negative insights to push their point.
 * Theworldview101 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Politifact.com does not mention any of the sources cited in the article. Why do you conclude that the sources cited in Rob Cornilles are false? Given this, it would seem that your intent is to whitewash the article. Jim1138 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can conclude this because I was close to the situation and know the facts. You can't say the sources I have given are biased and say the sources being used now are unbiased. We all know the lies that get thrown around in a political campaign. This just happened to be a campaign in a very one-sided media market. If you aren't willing to allow my edits then I should at least have the right to add that these claims are unsubstantiated and hallow.Theworldview101 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of your own knowledge is classified as wp:original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research Please cite RS supporting your claims. Your editing history would appear to be in conflict with Wikipedia's: a wp:conflict of interest. If there are inaccuracies in the sources, please contact the sources and get them corrected. Wikipedia simply reflects what the RS states. Jim1138 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you agree that the word "Scandals" in the title, "Political Career and scandals" is misleading? Given there was never an investigation, charges, etc, I believe it is biased to state that word. Can we edit the title to say, "Political Career"? Theworldview101 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging because it's been awhile. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)