Wikipedia:Editor review/Raggz

{{subst:Editor-review|1=I'm requesting review if I generally comply with the WP NPOV and OR policies.

I've developed an interest in politically controversial articles because I have found that small groups of like-minded editors have written articles that (1) may have a great deal of OR, (2) lack citations, and (3) violate NPOV policy. These editors protect these articles from my edits, claiming that my edits lack a factual basis, constitute OR, or violate NPOV. I percieve their input to be biased and motivated to protect their POV. I might be mistaken however, so am requesting review here.

I'm pleased that a number of articles have progressed with my help to what I view as being much improved. Others have said that what I offer is "is intolerable". I don't trust people that I percieve to be POV Warriors for input, they tend to make personal rather than editorial criticisim. I have been learning, and believe that my more recent edits are better than before.

Please read some of the comments on my user page, some of these probably should be accepted, others ignored. Which are which? Any advice will be appreciated.

Some recent contributions are to:

legality of the Iraq War Great white shark Democracy International Criminal Court

Users who have expressed difficulties include:

User_talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts User_talk:Nickhh User_talk:smb

Nickhh stated this: "Please note that an RfC is being prepared against you over your constant insertion of factual errors and original research into Wikipedia articles. If you do not stop your disruptive editing, I will make a more serious and formal complaint against you and - hopefully - have you barred from editing for effective vandalism. Editors such as myself and other should not have to waste time continually correcting edits like these every day [3], [4]. You do not have the right to insert falsehoods and nonsense into articles here, and then drag others into long debates on the talk pages about them before finally conceding the point. There are many other examples and this has been going on, on and off, since May this year. People's patience is running out. Nickhh 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)"

I doubt that he will actually request an RfC, because he would open his actions to review, but this comment prompted me to seek your informal review. Thank you. Raggz 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into your disputes with other editors (I would advise you that calling people "POV Warriors" is not assuming good faith, and should probably be avoided). That being said, you have a tendency to draw conclusions in your edits, often based on facts, but usually in a way that is not entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.  You write about what may or may not be the case, and then draw conclusions about what would flow from the possibilities.  The better approach is to simply present the facts, and to the extent that you need to present conclusions, cite to the appropriate authority.  The problem with the alternative is that other people might draw different conclusions, which is one of the reasons that we require citations in the first place.  I hope this helps. JCO312 01:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, assuming anyone is reading this - I have a real issue with editors who insert claims into Wikipedia articles that the European Parliament is not elected via universal suffrage, or that it makes decisions on a QMV basis, as the edits referred to above, made by you Raggz, did. These are simple, demonstrable falsehoods, and are merely two examples of what you get up to here. The fact that you seem willing to highlight your own ignorance by copying my comments to you about those edits onto this page only adds to my confusion about what you think you are doing.  You might also want to spend two seconds working out that it is not me who was looking into opening an RfC, but another editor (and that I simply said I would back them up on this if necessary, or even take it further).  Plus I don't quite see what "actions" of mine I might have cause to be concerned about. I have nothing to hide but my frustration with your inept and borderline-vandalistic editing. --Nickhh 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)