Annegc1

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to George Clooney appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. TINYMARK 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I've certainly not blanked the section about "Charlton Heston's controversy" but put it a little bit higher on the page. Do we have to believe that this 5-year-old joke is so important that it has to close George Clooney's page? Do we have to believe that this so-called controversy, which died a long time ago according to everybody but George Clooney's opponents who can't stand his politics views, is more important than his engagement for the Darfur? I do think that the fact that this event takes such a place in his page and the erasing of some of my other contributions to this part(the year when the joke was made + the misquote of George Clooney: according to him he has never said "Charlton Heston has announced again..." but "President of the NRA...", like he stated to Liz Smith a few days after he had made his joke during a non-filmed event...) plain show a non-neutral point of view. It should have the similar place than the "Abramoff's joke" and certainly not a whole section of its own.

I might add that unlike your change quite suggest: Gabriel Ferrer is the son of Jose Ferrer and Rosemary Clooney. And George Clooney was named "Messenger of peace" which is the highest rank given to a civil, by the UN.

And he has never owned any jet.

Annegc1 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid you will never be taken seriously. You don't seem to know how Wikipedia works nor do you seem interested in it. If anyone looks at your contributions they will immediately notice that all your edits are George Clooney-related. The first thought that then comes to mind is, "A ha, a fan". If you are a fan you should distance yourself from editing those articles! As far as the negative reports on Clooney's life are concerned, take a look in any newspaper or the television, the bad stories are always preferred. That's just life!

On another note, it would be better if you could edit the entire article and use the preview button in between times. This just makes it easier for others to see if you are adding POV information. Greetings TINYMARK 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for proving my point: you're definitely non neutral. So please, don't give lessons to others. I thought that Wikipedia try to make reliable entries. Your last post plain showed that the truth is not its goal. Thank you for opening my eyes on that issue and about the facts that only people who hate a subject or read nothing about it can edit article on wikipedia and that if you don't edit several different pages, you don't have rights to edit one... Annegc1 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am neutral. I have no great interest in the article - I'm not even sure how it landed on my watchlist! I was not trying to be rude or nasty, just telling you how it is. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and the truth is not the main goal. Wikipedia depends purely on reliably-sourced information. If you know something to be true then write it in, but if it seems suspect to someone and you haven't provided a source it will probably get deleted again. In particular, all potentially contentious information in biographies of living persons must be sourced. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit." I never said you have no right to edit articles, I was just saying what an impression any editor would from seeing your contributions list. If you notice I have left your edits alone and even changed a part which probably puts Mr Clooney in a slightly better light. Don't give up! TINYMARK 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)