User talk:Savethewest

Welcome!

Hello, Savethewest, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes[edit]

Please do not add anything to the article that alludes to a racial motivation for the killing. You have now had three of your edits reverted because of this, which technically means you are in violation of the three revert rule, which could get you banned. If you would like to contribute to the article in general, you are of course completley welcome to do so, but I have glanced over your other edits, and it does seem that you may have a leaning towards articles that contain racially motivated material. If this is the case, please try to comment and contribute neutrally, as it is not appropriate to introduce a bias for personal reasons. This is not a warning, but if you re-introduce the racial material to the Barnes article again, you will likely recieve a warning from someone. Please understand I am trying to help you here, and prevent you from getting banned. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was revert your edits because you repeatedly tried to introduce a racial element to the article. Like I said above, everyone is welcome to contribute to any article, but your edits, which I ignored for a while but eventually had to speak to you about, were racist in tone because of you perpetually pushing the fact that the victim being white and the killer being black had something to do with the murder. Additionally, having had a look at the other articles you had edited, it seemed that you may have been deliberately pushing an agenda. My message was not a warning to you, it was a heads up that what you were writing was unacceptable. Your edits were reverted in their entirety because of this. It may not have been what you were intending to do, but you can't sneak in racially motivated information in amongst other fairly decent information. Please do not try to accuse me of just disagreeing with what you wrote, this is clearly not the reason for my message and won't help this situation either. All I have asked is for you to contribute neutrally, which is perfectly reasonable and within the rules here. As long as you do not push the racial aspect into the article again (and I'm not certain you even realised that it was wrong, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt) there is no further issue here at all. Have a good day. Sky83 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ignatiev[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did in this edit: [1] to Noel Ignatiev, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that Jews are not generally considered a race. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did in this edit: [2] to Xenophobia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Noel Ignatiev. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that copies of Wikipedia articles that appear on other websites are never reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Noel Ignatiev and Xenophobia[edit]

Actually, neither of the two edits I objected to were sourced, and neither of them were verifiable. You did not source your statement "...many Jews are disproprtionally priviliged"; anyone who lived through The Holocaust would doubt that statement very much.

Second, your claim that the term "xenophobia" was "mostly used by Jews and left-wing politicians" is also unsourced and unverifiable because it is false; there are many right-wing politicians in the US who use the term as well, such as Mike Huckabee, who definitely isn't Jewish.

Third of all, regarding controversy/criticism sections in articles: these are used only when notable individuals have criticised a group, a person, a movie, et cetera, and only when they can be referenced to a reliable, third-party source. If Jesse Jackson criticises a movie because he thinks it is racist, we might be able to add that to the movie's article since Jackson is fairly notable, but we could only do this if Jackson's criticism were reported on by a reliable third-party source. Jesse Jackson couldn't just log on to Wikipedia and add "I'm Jesse Jackson, and I think this movie is racist", to the article.

You just added your own personal opinions to the Noel Ignatiev and Xenophobia articles; that's different from the controversy/criticism sections in other articles that you mentioned. If your views had been reported by a third-party reliable source such as a newspaper or in a book (written by someone other than you, of course), then they would be fair game. However, you would still have to source the views properly and word them in a way that neither implies.

Fourth and finally, Noel Ignatiev is not Jewish; that rumor has been debunked already (see Talk: Noel Ignatiev). Since your edit to that article was false to begin with, it should have been removed even if you hadn't phrased it like an editorial, which you did, and which is a violation of WP: NPOV.

-Stonemason89 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Chun Do[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Wing Chun Do, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Specifically, your article "Wing Chun Do" relies entirely on primary sources, which are not sufficient to provide notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wing Chun Do[edit]

The article Wing Chun Do has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No proof of notability; all sources are primary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]