User talk:76.180.115.242

please do not continually revert. Discuss changes on the talk page.76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

stop vandalizing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.253 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not, and I do not appreciate being accused of it. This is still up for debate. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You defiantly insist on adding material that clearly does not reflect a consensus, and in some cases is extremely POV. From this standpoint, “Due to the precived racism of the law” is simply beyond the pale, in addition to being sloppy and unencyclopedic. You've been reverted at least twice by two different editors; please stop adding material that doesn't reflect consensus. JeffConrad (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)