User talk:Fulcrum9

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alt porn. 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. SQGibbon (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alt porn

Hey there. The problem with your edit on the Alt porn article is not necessarily the content that you're trying to insert, it's how you're going about it. Some of your sources are suspect. You can't just quote some blogger, it has to be someone notable by Wikipedia standards (please read WP:RS). Your use of inline external links is problematical. Not only does it make the entire section look ugly (with all the blue links) it makes it difficult to read. Please read WP:CITE to see how to make references that look good, are easy to read, and conform to the way things are done on Wikipedia. I've had a difficult time reading through your edit but at least some of it appears to be original research. This is a situation where you've put together facts about the situation, drawn conclusions, and are then using Wikipedia to report on it. If you read the previous link ("original research") it will explain this in better detail and why it's not allowed on Wikipedia. You also seem to be expressing your own opinion on this matter (whatever it is) which clearly goes against WP:NPOV.

Again, there might be something here worth keeping but as it stands now it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. My suggestion is to bring it up on the talk page of the article or even better to read the links I provided above and rewrite it to conform to Wikipedia standards. This will make it easier for the rest of us to verify the claims (please read Wikipedia policy on verifiability) which also means it's more likely to remain in the article. The way it is now any experienced editor who comes across that section will delete it for the reasons mentioned above. Rewrite it and it stands a much better chance of remaining. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)