User talk:SadSwanSong

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SadSwanSong, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jncraton (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and POV-pushing

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm noticing a pattern of behavior on your part on the Libyan civil war page, edit-warring and POV-pushing in what seems to be an effort to slant the page toward the perspective of the late Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi and his followers. This behavior isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. I would encourage you, if you have changes you would like to see that you think other editors could reasonably object to, to participate on the Talk:Libyan civil war page and make a case for your proposed edits. Thank you! -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Colonel Gaddafi is dead, and as he was never elected by popular vote, he was a dictator. I apologize if you were offended by my language, but my point stands. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Libyan civil war appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Jeancey (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Hoxha

That section came about as a "compromise" between me and a now-banned user. I have plans to radically revise the entire article and to make it far more detailed and better-sourced. When I originally wrote the article in 2008 I had access to significantly fewer sources on Albania and Hoxha than I do today. --Mrdie (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of another editor's talk page contribution

Your vandalism to the contribution of an IP editor to Talk:Human rights in Cuba (diff=477374179&oldid=477374077) is absolutly contrary to the most fundamental values of Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour, if repeated, will get you banned. --Red King (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Muammar Gaddafi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edits are pushing a POV, very clearly so. For all of your edits, I would suggest discussion on the talk page, as nearly all of them are going to be controversial. Jeancey (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! SadSwanSong, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Just as a note, if you would stop editing the parts of the article that are being discussed on the talk page while they are still being discussed, I think that this would become a lot less confrontational. The point of the talk page isn't to make an edit, and then because it was controversial, explain that edit. If it is controversial, you STOP putting it in, discuss it, once consensus has been reached, then you put the agreed on version in the article. At the moment, you are explaining why you think your version is correct, and then just putting it in the article. That isn't consensus, it actually is more disruptive that just adding incorrect information. I think that both sides of this argument have valid points, one of your main ones being that the article is fairly biased towards the rebels, but the solution isn't to remove rebel claims and replace them with equally biased ones toward the government. That just makes the article biased in the other directing. The point of consensus is to meet in the middle, with parts of both the rebel and government claims. Hopefully that made sense! Jeancey (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your edits of articles related to Lybian and Syrian uprising, your contributions give undue weight to state propaganda. See the policy of neutrality, especially this section. With regards to your edits of Genocides in history, please don't mass-remove items from the list without consensus; you stating your point on the talk page doesn't constitute consensus. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop making major changes in articles without consensus. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My editing

I will contribute to Wikipedia wherever I please. Deal with it. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Board

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a moment

The edit you reverted here is not vandalism. Please do not throw that term about carelessly, it can be quite offensive when employed improperly. When you are reverted, go to the article talk page. Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Acquaint yourself with this essay WP:BRD. Tiderolls 03:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.