User talk:Foodforthought22

Welcome

Hello, Foodforthought22, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - we shouldn't be adding it as an external link. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of a large part of Accuracy in Media

This[1] was unacceptable. Your edit summary "the section had many dead links and many were not NPOV or considered reliable under Wiki guidelines" shows a major lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be accessible on the net, they simply have to be identifiable so that they can be verified somehow. We also have WP:DEADLINK. Articles should be NPOV, we expect sources to have a point of view. See WP:BIASED. And unless you've edited a lot with other accounts or IP addresses, there is no way that you could know what sources we consider reliable in such detail.

Now that you've been reverted I expect you to go explain yourself in detail on the talk page. Your major deletion of sourced text could be considered a breach of the discretionary sanctions mentioned above, and a second such could lead to a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thank you for your message. I apologize for the misunderstanding. My intent was to begin to improve how some of the content is presented. The "controversies" section has a few entries that really don't seem like controversies based on the information that is there. I was thinking that it might be more accurate if the information was put into two sections: a "positions" section, describing the various positions AIM has taken over the years, and a "criticism" section, describing the criticism other groups and individuals have expressed about AIM's positions. Let me know what you think about this--I would appreciate your feedback. Foodforthought22 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer to integrate criticism, but this really need to be discussed on the talk page so that other editors can join in. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not sure if you noticed, but I posted on the AIM talk page and wanted to see if you had any feedback. Thanks! Foodforthought22 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using a far-right antisemitic website as a source is not acceptable

[2]: "Overwhelming evidence indicates that 9-11 was an "inside job", "PHASE TWO OF 9-11 IS ALREADY PLANNED", "he 5 Big TV Networks, Every Major Radio Station, and every Big City Daily Newspaper in the USA is now owned or controlled by the top anti-Christ Jewish Supremists;" and other hateful insanities. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]