User talk:Vang Vieng resident

Please don't vandalise Vang Vieng again
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are trying to add the same text as you were before, despite this leading to a six month page protection before to stop you doing so. You will not succeed in getting this text included through this method and will eventually be blocked. For details, see Talk:Vang Vieng. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why there's a problem with your user name, but I guess it's because of the use of the town name. How about changing it to VV Veteran?Mattun0211 (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Hi VV Resident,

Yes I've been through there and I live in SE Asia as well and know the region well. I think the key problem here is that you don't understand what Wikipedia is. I hope you read the links I left on the VV talk page. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to air your views. It is not a place for you to give your own analysis - WP:FORUM & WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources WP:RS rather than opinion WP:OR and should be written in a neutral point of view - WP:NPOV. This last point is crucial and is the one I think you don't understand - from WP:truth - "Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability."

Just in case you haven't read it, here's the first paragraph from WP:truth which I think will help. "Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

If you want to add info from that source, then the best thing to do would be to make suggestions in the talk page. But bear in mind there is already quite a bit of negative info - read the talk page to get background on that. in order to adhere to WP:balance and WP:weight i would suggest a sentence or two. It's worth being extra careful about anything that is likely to cause comment and anything that you are passionate about. If you explain your edits on the talk page and don't have a reputation for disruption, you have more chance of your input being accepted by other editors.


 * I've been bold and added some info from your reliable source Mattun0211 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I've taken away the warning as on reflection, I see second time round you were actually trying to be more constructive, weren't deleting sourced material reached through consensus and while you were still breaking some of the wiki guidelines, I can see that they were good faith edits.Mattun0211 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)