User:V7-sport/sandbox3

I could go on here as he well knows. In terms of edit summaries: "stop trolling my talk page" "long term disruptive editor who refuses any good faith attempt to help him as e.g. mentorship" (LOL!) "troll comment"

IQinn, from reading a fair amount of your writing, I have seen that your reading comprehension is not very good. The similarity is "non-specific argumentation". Above you keep saying the same thing over and over, without once providing a reliable source to the disputed sentence. In regard to the Slahi article, you cannot provide a single example of any OR in the article. You non-specifically repeat your claim over and over. That's quite similar. Another similarity is your ignorance of what ad hominem (note the spelling) means. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"You routinely use the term "ad hominem" when other good faith contributors voice concerns over your edits. You did so again here, I wish there was a friend here, who could explain this to you. You don't seem to understand the actual meaning of this term. In my comment I voiced my concern about your edit. I said nothing about your character, motives, or judgment." -Geo Swan

"If, after having read the attempt I have made to clarify the matter, and having read the policy, you still don't understand what edit warring is, then it seems you must lack the comptence to edit without making the same mistake again JamesBWatson