User talk:Thegraduate96

Welcome...

Hello, Thegraduate96, 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 Arkansas Razorbacks have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), 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.There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Reorion (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what was not neutral about the article I wrote?

Please note that I wrote this text (but didn't save it) before the Sockpuppetry accusation was posted here. I am going to go ahead and post this anyway in the same form in which I wrote it (see below). Jonneroo (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to welcome you here. This is a great place for learning, and I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. I have found that reading articles in Wikipedia is educational, but contributing to Wikipedia is much more educational.

I'm still new here, and to get more official, accurate, and complete information on this subject, it is recommended that you follow and read the links provided above and elsewhere within Wikipedia. But I will see whether I can help explain a little bit.

None of us mean to step on your toes, so please do not take offense. We do, however, take our responsibilities here pretty seriously. As you know, Wikipedia is user-created and user-supported. English-speaking people all over the world read what we write, and people use Wikipedia as a serious reference source. It's up to us as the users to make sure that the integrity of what goes into every Wikipedia article meets certain standards, or there would be no difference between Wikipedia and a blog site.

Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable sources. A reputable source, in print somewhere, needs to back up your contention, or it could be considered original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This is true with all Wikipedia textual content, but it becomes an especially sensitive issue with content that could be controversial and may be a viewpoint only held by a minority of people. Also, a responsible approach to journalism is making sure that both sides of the story are told, rather than only one viewpoint. (An exception to this is when a viewpoint is held by a very tiny percentage of people, in which case the policies of Wikipedia discourage or disallow such an extreme viewpoint from being given undue representation in an article, if that viewpoint is even allowed to be mentioned at all.)

We're not trying to censor what you're saying about UA not playing in-state schools. We're not even saying your viewpoint is invalid or not shared by a lot of people. I live in central Arkansas, and I know that there are a lot of Arkansans who question the fairness of the situation. The viewpoint may be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But before it belongs in Wikipedia, the viewpoint must be backed up by a reputable source that you can cite, and you should give both sides of the story.

I encourage you to find a reputable source somewhere (not just a blog or forum) that talks about the history of UA not playing in-state schools (especially ASU). Write about it in your own words. Cite that source in your text. Present the facts and commonly-held opinions, and say who has those opinions. But present only the facts and opinions that are specifically stated in your source text, and be careful not to twist them around. Be fair and unaccusing in your tone. If you will do that, I bet your contribution will stand a much, much better chance of meeting the NPOV standard, and it very well may a worthy inclusion to the article and to Wikipedia.

I hope that helps a little bit. Jonneroo (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-thank you for clearing it up.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CentralTiger74 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Reorion (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]