Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Pekin, Iowa has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/IA/Airfields_IA_W.html#pekin (matching the
regex rule (?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com).
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Hi. " Radical Right" is a term used in academia to describe movements such as the John Birch Society. If you read the Radical Right article you'll see plenty of examples of this (and how the term was coined with JBS in mind). Academic terminology is typically favoured, as it denotes greater precision of definition than in everyday conversation. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC).
Please don't edit edit archives of talk pages. Will Beback talk 02:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not let yourself be "run off" the discussion page by childish, erroneous and vindictive posts (and/or officious deletions) from any other user. I disagree with your view that the source in question is inadmissible. I strongly disagree with your claim as to how the source has described himself (I cannot find any supporting reliable sources); also with your reasons re. excluding the source, and your views about a left-wing bias in Wikipedia distorting the history it records (incidentally the project talk page is not the place to air general views based on personal opinion). But like anyone else, you are entirely free to contribute re. the substance and detail of the project, with suggestions that may help to improve it. Please also bear in mind that under WP:BLP anything presented as fact about a living person (e.g. a contention that a person has described themselves in a particular way) must be supported by impeccably reliable sources; and take care to keep within the WP:Forum policy! Happy editing and a happy new year. Best wishes, Writegeist ( talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have observed for a long time the tactics of what I suspect are full-time liberal wiki "gatekeeper" editors employed by the professional left think-tanks, etc who work in small groups to support each others edit wars on political pages. These gatekeepers are relentless, and will keep reverting edits and targeting individual editors for months on end regardless of proper citations, sources, etc, knowing that sooner or later their target will just give up. These are established editors, but when you look through their histories, they are filled exclusively with non-stop edit wars on political pages, always supporting left-wing agendas with blatant, often absurd bias. Attempts to escalate their edit wars only bring out their posse to defend each other. The problem here is that these gatekeepers are the judge, jury, and executioners and nothing can get by them. The result is that a small group of radical left-wingers are rewriting history and using WP as a propaganda platform.
Another thing I've seen is how they establish multi-layer levels of obfuscation of terminology that is nearly impossible to unravel. For example, the left wingers themselves define what "radical right wing" means, and then use their own definition to label other pages, saying that radical right wing has been defined, so it is proper to use freely. They have turned what used to be middle-of-the road conservatives in past decades (such as Reagan and now Paul Ryan) into "radical right wingers". They freely cite works from known left-wing authors as being sources to support their statements, and edit-war any attempts to refute those citations. I sincerely worry about what our children are learning from these pages.
The question is, how can these established editors get flushed out for who they are, and what they are doing in tandem with each other? They absolutely control the political pages, and are responsible for the liberal propaganda platform Wikipedia has become. It almost requires a group of moderates to relentlessly target their edit wars to try to bring NPOV moderation. -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
USS Bataan (LHD-5), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Mark Arsten (
talk)
02:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Pekin, Iowa has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/IA/Airfields_IA_W.html#pekin (matching the
regex rule (?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com).
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Hi. " Radical Right" is a term used in academia to describe movements such as the John Birch Society. If you read the Radical Right article you'll see plenty of examples of this (and how the term was coined with JBS in mind). Academic terminology is typically favoured, as it denotes greater precision of definition than in everyday conversation. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC).
Please don't edit edit archives of talk pages. Will Beback talk 02:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not let yourself be "run off" the discussion page by childish, erroneous and vindictive posts (and/or officious deletions) from any other user. I disagree with your view that the source in question is inadmissible. I strongly disagree with your claim as to how the source has described himself (I cannot find any supporting reliable sources); also with your reasons re. excluding the source, and your views about a left-wing bias in Wikipedia distorting the history it records (incidentally the project talk page is not the place to air general views based on personal opinion). But like anyone else, you are entirely free to contribute re. the substance and detail of the project, with suggestions that may help to improve it. Please also bear in mind that under WP:BLP anything presented as fact about a living person (e.g. a contention that a person has described themselves in a particular way) must be supported by impeccably reliable sources; and take care to keep within the WP:Forum policy! Happy editing and a happy new year. Best wishes, Writegeist ( talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have observed for a long time the tactics of what I suspect are full-time liberal wiki "gatekeeper" editors employed by the professional left think-tanks, etc who work in small groups to support each others edit wars on political pages. These gatekeepers are relentless, and will keep reverting edits and targeting individual editors for months on end regardless of proper citations, sources, etc, knowing that sooner or later their target will just give up. These are established editors, but when you look through their histories, they are filled exclusively with non-stop edit wars on political pages, always supporting left-wing agendas with blatant, often absurd bias. Attempts to escalate their edit wars only bring out their posse to defend each other. The problem here is that these gatekeepers are the judge, jury, and executioners and nothing can get by them. The result is that a small group of radical left-wingers are rewriting history and using WP as a propaganda platform.
Another thing I've seen is how they establish multi-layer levels of obfuscation of terminology that is nearly impossible to unravel. For example, the left wingers themselves define what "radical right wing" means, and then use their own definition to label other pages, saying that radical right wing has been defined, so it is proper to use freely. They have turned what used to be middle-of-the road conservatives in past decades (such as Reagan and now Paul Ryan) into "radical right wingers". They freely cite works from known left-wing authors as being sources to support their statements, and edit-war any attempts to refute those citations. I sincerely worry about what our children are learning from these pages.
The question is, how can these established editors get flushed out for who they are, and what they are doing in tandem with each other? They absolutely control the political pages, and are responsible for the liberal propaganda platform Wikipedia has become. It almost requires a group of moderates to relentlessly target their edit wars to try to bring NPOV moderation. -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
USS Bataan (LHD-5), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Mark Arsten (
talk)
02:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |