User talk:Revisionism finds truth

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Revisionism finds truth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Stormfront (website) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Skomorokh 05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stormfront article

Greetings. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, and major changes to established articles require discussion and broad agreement from editors. Attempting to wholesale rewrite controversial articles, such as you did to Stormfront (website), is not productive. You removed many reliable sources, as well as recasting the article to present the subject in a more favourable light; this is not in keeping with our policies on neutral point of view and verification. Please come to Talk:Stormfront (website) and discuss the individual changes you'd like to make. Sincerely, Skomorokh 09:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the debate begin. The article was hardly neutral. I think the way it has been put forth from my edits is neutral. Revisionism finds truth (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there has long been a neutrality dispute concerning that article (some saying it is too pro-Stormfront, some saying the opposite). Would you like to start a discussion on Talk:Stormfront (website) outlining point-by-point what you think ought to be altered? Skomorokh 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the edits 2 minutes after they were made. You did not even read the edits. How about we revert it back to my edits, let people read them, determine neutrality, and then edit from there. Your edits are borderline vandalism erasing such content and quality. Wikipedia is not a propaganda website, and actions, such as the one you have taken, greatly impede credibility. Most of what was there is still there, within the great content put forth. However, Don Black and David Duke have their own pages, where people can read about them. This is about the website. Revisionism finds truth (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See how far that attitude gets you on a collaborative encyclopaedia. If you manage not to be indefinitely blocked from editing and decide to participate in an adult manner, I will see you on the talkpage. Good day, Skomorokh 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously of the side that does not like Stormfront. What authority do you have in lecturing about neutrality? Revisionism finds truth (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

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 Stormfront (website) 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 our core policies. Thank you. Verbal chat 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what was not neutral. The article before the edits was completely geared toward one view of the website, the view of those who don't like it. Those views are still present, with neutral facts in support of the website. There is not bias that has been placed in the article by these edits. Everything is factual to give a complete view to Wikipedia readers as to what this Stormfront website is about.

Revisionism finds truth (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your edits on the talk page first. I fear you will not find much support from editors or policy. Verbal chat 09:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stormfront (website). 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]