User talk:GarolStipock

Welcome

Hello, GarolStipock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! EW_ikist^Talk 23:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

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 Canadian Security Intelligence Service 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 important core policy. Thank you. The book cited contains unverified information provided by a former employee of the agency with a grudge. This is not a reliable source and the addition of large amounts of such material, aside from being redundant, violates WP:NPOV. Taroaldo (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A book written by a Globe and Mail journalist, and published by Random House absolutely meets the definitions of a "reliable source". To claim it is "unverified information" is to suggest that we can say "Bob Hope was born in 1903" is unverifiable information that came from a book somewhere. You have removed many references from the article, not just Mitrovica, and butchered hours of work to improve it. If you have any evidence a claim is untrue, or disputed, add it to the article - but otherwise I'm going to go with the guy from the second-largest newspaper, and note that Google Books mentions 354 books that reference Mitrovica's research of CSIS...and note that not one of them appears to suggest he is unreliable. GarolStipock (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:EAR

See WP:EAR#Any Canadians about? undue-weight CSIS edits. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canadian Security Intelligence Service. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Repeatedly adding a large quantity of material which violates WP:UNDUE and WP:ATP, and which does not follow WP:NPOV Taroaldo (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop editorialising and threatening other editors? It'd go a long way towards cooperation if you stopped acting like a dick. GarolStipock (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you should focus more attention on your own conduct. You should also reconsider your behavior in insulting other editors. Just a thought. Taroaldo (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A comment regarding your offer to rewrite the article has been posted at WP:EAR#Any Canadians about? undue-weight CSIS edits. You may respond there if you wish. --Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:GarolStipock/CSIS

User:GarolStipock/CSIS, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GarolStipock/CSIS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:GarolStipock/CSIS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Denis Leyne

The article Denis Leyne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphan article; WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. kingboyk (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)