User talk:BTAUS

3RR
I draw your attention to WP:3RR. Please read it carefully William M. Connolley 13:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a rule existed, I'll take it into consideration from now on. - User:BTAUS


 * I'm afraid "take it into consideration" isn't good enough. As they say... its not just a good idea, its the law. You're blocked for 24h William M. Connolley 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcewatch page
This is amazing. Within one minute of me offering the compromise, BTAUS has once again changed the page. I would like to point out BTAUS that you have broken the 3 changes in a day rule. I suugest you clam down and think before you keep chaning the page again and again. You certainly do not help your own case at all. I offered a compromise, lets here what Reem has to say. Please clam down. (Beau Chandler

BC you are clearly confused, I suggest you compare my edit to JQ's edit, the leftwing/liberal comment was not removed it was moved. You have made unesscessary changes for not apparant reason. User:BTAUS

You can say what you want, you have been reported now and they will take your edits under consideration. I suggest you calm down before you make it worse for yourself. (Beau Chandler

Whatever mate, we'll let the editors decide, Im sure they will see the changes I made. User:BTAUS

BTAUS I do agree that B.Chandler's compromise is fair. Your version does not keep the sections in the right place it also reduces segments. You may have one line that refelcts the commenst but ti does not cover the other parts. I am therefore of the view that Chandler's version is the appropriate one for the time being. The sections are in the right area. BTAUS you have already made far too many changes. BTAUS please observe WP:3RR and stop reverting. User:Mike Sampson

Mike have you kept up with the discussion on the article? BC and RB accuse me of removing the liberal/leftwing comment and that is why they keep making changes, but they are in error the comment was not removed. That comment does not belong in the criticisms section, that is all I have changed. User:BTAUS

BTAUS your account may be frozen if you continue this. The total section may not have been removed but one line in the top section does not look good or read well. The liberal/left wing section has been partly removed. and that is not appropriate. I will have a closer look if this belongs in that section but from what I can see, the reason why it is in that section is because the next comments show the areas SourceWatch focus is on. I am trying to actually help you. Can you also again please look at section WP:3RR I repeat you will be frozen out if you continue to keep reverting. User:Mike Sampson

Mike it doesn't matter whether it looks good or not what Iam trying to achive is neutrality. The source provided does not critisize sourcewatch for being liberal/leftwing, it only confirms that sourcewatch is perceived to liberal/leftwing, so why does this comment belong in the criticisms section Mike? Both BC and RB have broken the 3RR rule and yet nothing has been said to them. User:BTAUS

I will ask them also to stop making changes also. I would point out that they do make other changes to wikipedia whereas you I'm afraid to say are solely focused on one issue. I have made my compromise version. I have moved the liberal left wing comment to where you had it. But the remaining part of that section is to remain in the criticism section. I urge you one last time to stop.User:Mike Sampson

Mike the fact that they have edited more articles than I have means absolutely nothing, as far as I am concerned they made uneccessary changes to an article that was perfectly fine and they refused to listen to me when I repeatadely told them that I had not removed the liberal/leftwing comment. You only have to look at the history of the article and the history of the discussion page to verify my claims. Don't take this the wrong way because I do appreciate your mediation but don't try to put this all on me. User:BTAUS

I appreciate your efforts and for respecting the changes. Hopefully the other two will as well. I have not put this all on you at all. I have also spoken to them Regarding your proposed change for the link, it seems more appropriate where it is. It would not make sense for it to be repeated. That is also purely a conservative criticism. Whereas the section

"Critics claim that most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. "

It about a variety of people being profiled on SourceWatch that SW perceives and not just natural conservatives. Perhaps it would help to add one line about how media personalities, analysts and academics have also been profiled which would fit in to the Activist cash section. I'll have a closer look. However as I said it would not be appropriate to use the Caurba quote again as it does not fit in with the above paragrpah and it fits in nicely in its current section. User:Mike Sampson