User talk:7oceans

Welcome to Wikipedia
tedder (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra Leave from CIO
Hi, I was wondering what your reason was for reverting the edits about Vivek Kundra's Leave from CIO, since you did not specify a reason.Truprint (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Vivek Kundra. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you are editing on behalf of blocked IP editor 66.171.128.239, please read WP:SOCK.  At am a  頭 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was an oversight not to leave a reason. Having followed this discussion for a month, this appears to be another concerted and backhanded attempt to inject the reference to Kundra's 1996 "indiscretion" into the page. This has been discussed ad infinitum. In the discussion 'Regarding Arrest' there was consensus that was reached that Kundra's BLP was to be held to the same standard as President George W. Bush's WP page and that this content had no place here. To tie together an irrelevant investigation seems like a sketchy and far fetched attempt of a tabloid paper. It is my intent to adhere to WP:BLP standards of not being "sensationalist". This has lately been the bane of WP. --7oceans (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Suspicion of sockpuppetry on the account that you made exactly the same edits as the anonymous IP, and you just happened to start editing again right after the IP was blocked (you were inactive for a month). Coincidence? I think not. By the way, other editors also share such suspicions. See for more information. -Reconsider the static (talk)
 * Haha, good luck following that up. Report me, I dare you. :) -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content". Yep, I'm still waiting for your reply on the article talk page. You're initiating the controversial change (removal of content) so it is actually your job to carry out a discussion and consensus on the talk page before removing it. NOT after someone challenges the edit.-Reconsider the static (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/7oceans for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --  At am a  頭 16:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am surprised! I just got back to find this unwarranted attack. I am relatively new to WP and don't know the mechanisms at the disposal of experienced users. My position is simple: if there is a contentious issue the content should be moved to the discussion page until people reach consensus. There was an ongoing discussion when I left in the morning. Unfortunately I do not devote all my time on WP. -7oceans (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaving you a courtesty notice about edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Vivek Kundra. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

By the way, you have already broken the WP:3RR rule by reverting 4 times in the past 24 hours. I'm not reporting you to WP:AN3 as a courtesy, because you have not yet been warned about the matter. But I suggest that you stop your reverting at Vivek Kundra or you will be blocked, assuming that the sockpuppetry case against you doesn't result in an indefinite block. My suggestion to you is to please let the current furor at the article blow over, just wait a few days, and then after the accusations have settled bring up your arguments on the talk page of the article. At that point it will be easier to assume good faith in your requests to modify the article. --  At am a  頭 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions to WP:3RR. I am afraid that you may be violating policy regarding a BLP by reverting my edits and censuring me for "edit-warring" for removing controversial even though it is cited material.
 * To quote EdJohnston (administrator) who has addressed this at User talk:EdJohnston: "Check WP:3RR. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material)."
 * For a BLP, refer to WP:Vandalism:Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

-- 7oceans (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Vivek Kundra, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 3RR. Thank you. Rees11 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it occur to you that your insistence may be disruptive. I am asking for offline discussion on a topic that has already been resolved before you joined in this fray. There are exceptions to WP:3RR. I am afraid that you may be violating policy regarding a BLP by reverting my edits and censuring me for "edit-warring" for removing controversial even though it is cited material.
 * To quote EdJohnston (administrator) who has addressed this for a BLP at User talk:EdJohnston: "Check WP:3RR#Exceptions. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material)."
 * For a BLP, refer to WP:Vandalism:Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.
 * -- 7oceans (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)