User talk:Gjonesagain: Difference between revisions

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal point of view or commentary added to my edits. All of my edits were cited using mainstream media articles from reputable news sources with a neutral point of view. Before I made my edits, the page had a definite political lean which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Gjonesagain (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 00:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are 100% neutral and contain no personal commentary or analysis. The citations in my edits are from mainstream outlets such as CNN, Politico and Fox News. Your un-doing of my edits violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This article currently contains heavy politically left leaning language. This article needs to have a neutral point of view of all facts. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to include political bias in the edits. Gjonesagain (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner, New York Post and Fox News are not usable for politics in this way, you are introducing problematic material. Please refer to WP:RSP. Andre🚐 01:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Extraordinary Writ was:

You're welcome to add this content at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Durham investigation, but I don't see a need for a stand-alone article at this point. Feel free to resubmit after the report is released.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Durham Report 2022 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gjonesagain! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andre🚐 23:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]