User talk:Msticalprincess

April 2011

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 Ron Paul 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. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of Tea Party politicians. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hi. I understand you like Ron Paul (I do as well). And many people certainly consider him to be the founder of the modern Tea Party movement. But as an encyclopedia, we can't add content calling him the "godfather" and using language such as "the rest is history..." I think the content you are adding might be OK, certainly at Ron Paul, but try to be a little more neutral and encyclopedic. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a FACT. It's well documented. How can this not be "important enough"??????

It is important, but it needs to be sourced and written appropriately for an encyclopedia. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary in the List of Tea Party politicians article anyway. Ron Paul is already listed in the table. In the Ron Paul article it is appropriate in the lead if properly sourced. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree. With the GOP and the RNC trying to co-op this movement it is CRITICAL that the people know the origins of this movement. CRITICAL.

I have brought this up on that article's talk page here. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You can bring it up in the article if you want but it's CRITICAL that people that look at the Tea Party pages know the origin of the Modern day Tea Party and these FACTS are well documented in history. Why are you being so resistant to the TRUTH?

Wikipedia is not a place to "get the truth out to people". If you want to do that, start a blog. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedia could be full of lies and no one cares? Again...why are you being so resistant to these FACTS??? And why does YOUR opinion override mine???

It's not a lie. It just simply doesn't belong there. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Tea Party politicians. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)