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. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Arizona SB1070. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am being neutral. Read the law and you will see. TruthHurts235 ( talk) 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh i get it, I disagree with you so you threaten to block me. Very nice way to get what you want.
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think if you actually read the law you will relieze that I am not adding commentary. However, you can use your editing powers to get what you want so i guess it doesnt matter.
- I have no more powers than you have. Bring reliable sources, which show that what you claim to be "the truth" is true. Do not misrepresent the given source, do not interpret what the law mean or will mean, do not foresee or speculate on its application. Your personal opinion matters as little as does mine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you have no power why are you threatening me to get what you want? Which is too slate the article as a pro-fsacist one.
Truth, in order to state that the bill encourages racial profiling you would have to find one or more reliable sources that state that explicitly. Even then, since this is a controversial and contested claim, the assertion has to be worded in a way that is appropriate. Electroshoxcure ( talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
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. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Arizona SB1070. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am being neutral. Read the law and you will see. TruthHurts235 ( talk) 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh i get it, I disagree with you so you threaten to block me. Very nice way to get what you want.
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think if you actually read the law you will relieze that I am not adding commentary. However, you can use your editing powers to get what you want so i guess it doesnt matter.
- I have no more powers than you have. Bring reliable sources, which show that what you claim to be "the truth" is true. Do not misrepresent the given source, do not interpret what the law mean or will mean, do not foresee or speculate on its application. Your personal opinion matters as little as does mine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you have no power why are you threatening me to get what you want? Which is too slate the article as a pro-fsacist one.
Truth, in order to state that the bill encourages racial profiling you would have to find one or more reliable sources that state that explicitly. Even then, since this is a controversial and contested claim, the assertion has to be worded in a way that is appropriate. Electroshoxcure ( talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)