User talk:Catuskoti

Regarding reversions made on June 12 2008 to Kathleen Sebelius
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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, any edit which serves to undo another user's edit is considered a "revert" - and the three reverts do not need to be of the same edit in order to earn you a block on this. Furthermore, the rule isn't really intended to give you three free reverts every 24 hours. If you're going to undo the work of other editors, the least you can do is explain your reasoning on the article's Talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in an edit war. Note the 3-revert-rule, please.
Dear Catuskoti: Below is the comments you left on my talk page, even though you have already violated the 3RR rule: 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Catuskoti (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti
 * Dear Admin: Please note that the above editor, Catuskoti, has only edited ONE article in his/her edit history in Wikipedia.  Also, please note that Catuskoti has already violated the 3RR rule in his/her edit history of the article about Kathleen Sebelius.  And finally, dear Admin, please note that Catuskoti is violating every single thing that he/she is warning about--clearly Catuskoti is NOT editing in good faith.--InaMaka (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please edit in good faith. The above warning by you and your desire to impose your POV on the Sebelius article indicate that you are not editing in good faith.--InaMaka (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons.
 * Note: Blogs are not considered valid sources.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if each individual fact was well sourced there are clearly Original Research problems with drawing an non-obvious conclusion form the individual facts. (Surprise at Palin being pregnant + daughter missing school != baby is really daughter's).

Incidentally, it is mostly a misconception that women show obvious signs of pregnancy earlier than seven months (many don't). Also there have been numerous documented cases where even the women who was pregnant didn't realize it until they went into labor; pregnancy is not always accompanied by considerable weight gain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The non-controversial points by themselves likely wouldn't be considered relevant enough to be mentioned. I would guess they would be reverted by someone. (As you may have noticed, I didn't revert your submission; it was actually someone else) I suggest you take this to the talk page if you think it has any relevance. That would be its best chance of staying added, however don't make any conclusion or implications as they will be deleted even form the talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!!!
I'm sorry I didn't make that how to make a diff guide for you. here it is finally. --mboverload @ 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)