User talk:TokenPassport

Welcome[edit]

Hello, TokenPassport, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page LGBT have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or 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! Fences&Windows 03:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDL[edit]

I urge you to discuss proposed changes on the talk page. All your suggestions have been debated at length. Take a look and if you can put forward improvements just suggest them over there. This will protect the article from edit waring and accusations that as a fly-by editor you are causing disruption - which I'm sure is not your intention. Leaky Caldron 12:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They espouse a particular belief which the reliable media have reported and interpreted as “far right”. There has been widespread debate on this. There is currently an NPOV request here [1] at which your contribution might be better placed. The verifiable facts are that they are reported as far right. Remember verifiability not truth is what determines a NPOV. They pass the WP:Duck test. The rest of the article provides examples of their denial about far right motives to provide balance. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit waring on this. You have raised your concerns on the talk page and have received a response (as well as above). There are places to raise any legitimate points but restoring your personal interpretation, replacing consensus is a short route to a WP:3RR black for disruptive editing. Leaky Caldron 12:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Leaky Caldron 12:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Verbal chat 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My disruptive editing? I made good contributions to a bias article in the interests of neutrality. You undid them. I gave reasons and tried again, you undid them. So I undid your undos and amended the article to a comprimise. You undid it. It's all there in the history. You're the one warring and not following the guidelines, undoing whole edits rather than changing the words that you don't like and without even giving reasons. And the article is still terrible. The next paragraph introduces the subject as "it".

Alternate account(s)[edit]

Please list your other accounts or justify this omission, thanks. Verbal chat

No, that's not the rules. TokenPassport (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of alternate account is this? Verbal chat 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fixed point. An alternative to a variable IP address, as implied by the name.

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle[edit]

You posted this edit to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. However, it does not appear to have anything to do with Twinkle, so it has been removed. I am not sure who you did mean the message for, or I would have copied it to the appropriate user page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted.