User talk:71.156.37.168

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of 71.156.47.81‎.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.156.47.81‎ for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

[edit] Your edits to "House"

The comments you're adding to the House article may be "factual" but they carry "undue weight" which is why they're POV and unencyclopedic. Additionally, without context to suggest otherwise, they're also non-notable, which also makes them unencyclopedic.

Please stop adding them to the article. The article is not a forum, however strongly you may personally feel about the subject.

Additionally, you've reverted your edits back into the article three times now having had them removed by two different editors, in less than 24 hours. This means on more revert will violate WP:3RR. Please discuss your edits on the Talk: page first, and try to reach a consensus before making these kinds of edits.

--Squiggleslash 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

read my edition on ER then. I am only listing the fact here, show me the evidence that I am wrong. I will be happy to delete them.

There are a number of different groups that aren't represented on any given show. For you to single a specific one out across many pages shows clear POV --71.156.37.168 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also you should probably have a read of WP:SOAP. As mentioned before, singling out one underrepresented group is your point of view and not encyclopedic. Docta247 09:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. ", tell me which part of my edition is not objective? --71.156.37.168 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House (TV series). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

very good, did you give the same warning to the other person, good job. i certainly hope that you are treating everyone equally here. --71.156.37.168 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"The other person" is actually several editors, which suggests that the additions you're proposing are not in keeping with consensus. If I see another individual coming close to the three-revert limit, I'll warn them as well. Meanwhile, please discuss your edits on the talk page. You may also wish to review the "undue weight" section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to ER (TV series), as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)