User talk:Werbick

Welcome!
Hello, Werbick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutralitytalk 04:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Neutralitytalk 04:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Important standard notice
Neutralitytalk 04:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Neutrality. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Called out for personal attack when letting the moderator know why it’s true
Doug Weller if you feel that was a personal attack letting someone know what I feel thank I guess Wikipedia has become useless as a source of information if it is controlled by individuals who can’t take criticism or understand both points of view... but my edit was called incoherent (is that not an attack in me? It would be if I sent the same to Nutrality). I don’t understand that calling a news channel a constitutional news channel is incoherent. It’s a news chat that holds political news to the constitutional standards.——oh wait the left can’t. Never mind. Oh and Doug.... notice how I have not said anything about you so it’s not an attack but a conversation Werbick (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, we have no moderators. We have WP:Administrators who deal with conduct issues and some other things such as deleting copyright so that it no longer shows in the article history. But no content moderators. Secondly, what was actually said was "Your comment is fairly incomprehensible ("constitutional news channel" makes no sense)," - that's a comment on something you did and is not a personal attack. It's also accurate, that was also my response. It's easy to construe that as meaning a news channel established by the constitution. And given all the various interpretations of various parts of the US Constitution, it's impossible to say that any one person or news site is faithful to the actual meaning of the constitution. Even the Supreme Court changes its interpretations over time and is likely to do so again. This has nothing to do with left-right politics, it's just a fact.  Doug Weller  talk 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Point missed
I don’t care if you call them moderator or administrator their function is basically the same. Second, I did not edit copyright material, I removed opinions which in turn was don’t to me. Third, you stated I created a personal attack on an admin, which is untrue and the only item you did not respond to. Fourth. Calling a station a “Constitutional News channel” is accurate when they follow constitutionalism in their ideas and beliefs. “Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations.Jan 10, 2001 Stanford University › plato › entries Constitutionalism” taken from (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Doug, I’m only saying this as it’s funny. I am personal friends with a person and I edited (photo and all) his wiki page to the truth and one of your admins actually changed it back. Lol. He sat next to me when I did it because of non factual material. Sad but true. Cheers Werbick (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a conduct issue. Regardless of that, I don’t see what relevance Plato has in this argument, and I say that reluctantly as a classicist. And as far as the source, I don’t see that being true. We don’t convey what sources say about themselves if it’s disputable by RS. 00:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)