User talk:Repeater55

Welcome!

Hello, Repeater55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Three strikes law[edit]

A Wikipedia article isn't a useful place to link to an online petition, since those don't meet our external links guidelines. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Three strikes law. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other problems with your edits to three strikes is 1) citing a Dutch issue on a page about a US law and 2) adding an advocacy link to the page when wikipedia is not a soapbox and external links must be encyclopedic and add to the information content of the page in a way that substantially improves the page in a way that a featured article could not be. 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK,but why are you removing my text about the role of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 ? It happened that way !!I can proof it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeater55 (talk • contribs)

Looking into it, the section appears to be a violation of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and is not justified by any reliable sources. WLU (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resulting text of your most recent edit again violates WP:NPOV by placing several prominent adjectives which offer an opinion. It's still not justified by reliable sources, and per WP:PROVEIT, any unjustified text may be removed. Finally, the section appears to contain original research, assumptions and conclusions reached by the editor (you) rather than that of the sources you are quoting. WLU (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what opinion do you mean ? I only told the facts what schwarzenegger did !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeater55 (talk • contribs)

Prove it. WLU (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this articles

watch the videoclip and let Mr Schwarzenegger speak for himself.

is this enough evidence for you ? Repeater55 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your paragraph was phrased as a personal analysis, and so violated the neutral point of view policy. In addition to that, you were persistently adding a link which was a violation of the external links policy. Whether or not your facts are accurate isn't relevant, because you weren't simply adding facts. Given that you clearly feel very strongly about this issue, it might be better for you to discuss the change you desire on the talk page, and let other editors help decide how it should be phrased. I'll help by striking out those sources above which are not reliable by Wikipedia's definition. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont get it.

first you say: prove it. so I did. then you say: Whether or not your facts are accurate isn't relevant, because you weren't simply adding facts. ????????

now I ask you to give clear insight whether these points are facts or not

1. there was a coming referendum in 2004 about prop 66 2. there were polls about this referendum 3. the polls in the months before were 70% yes to the proposal 4. the gov launch TV spots and also a ralley through the state 5. in those TV spots he said : ".....quotations......." 6. those tv spots were 4 days before the referendum 7. the result of the referendum was 53% NO

Repeater55 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:WLU and I are two different people. He questioned your facts, and you offered sources. I assume that he is happy now. I question the difficulty your are having in phrasing your information as statements of fact, rather than your opinions and analysis of those facts, and suggested that you talk your facts to the article talk page to invite other users to help you to write a more appropriate paragraph about them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, much better process by going to the talk page and digging up reliable sources. Agree with FQ on all counts. WLU (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign[edit]

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 may 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. WLU (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple comments[edit]

Please post new comments at the bottom of talk pages - click on the blue + tab at the top of talk pages and it will automatically create a new section for you at the bottom. Fill in a title and then add text.

I've welcomed you at the top - a standard template that has a bunch of useful links on it. Check 'em out, they're the core of wikipedia.

Also note that I've moved, and replied, to your comment on Talk:Three strikes law. Using the two sources you have there, you could draft a good section, but I would expect it to be fairly short based on the current page and the sources. Also make sure that the addition is neutral. NPOV is pretty tricky for a new editor, so you might want to have a gander at WP:NPOVFAQ for a bit more info.

And as a final point, here is an essay I wrote for new editors. You could have a gander if you'd like, it's my take on what it was like to be a new editor and what I found useful. You did get hammered a bit by me initially, but you took it very civilly, and wikipedia needs editors like that! So welcome! WLU (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]