User talk:J2gn

Operation Red Wings
You need to understand a few things. First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What you are putting are exclusivly military terms, some of which are unfamiliar to most readers. You need to write normaly. Second, you are contradicting your own sources that you put. Most sources have cited the result of the battle (in non-military terms) as a pyrrhic us victory. Wikipedia runs on the principle of Verifibility and Reliability (reliable sources have been provided). What you are trying to do, contradict the reliable sources you yourself have presented by trying to use what are called weasel words on Wikipedia, is an attempt to present the result of the battle in more favorable terms for the US. This is a grave violation of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and what we call POV-pushing (point of view pushing). So, if you would please stick to what the sources say (same sources you yourself have added) and that is that it was a temporary us pyrrhic victory and long-term strategic insurgent victory. Please leave your personal views and feelings aside if you are to edit on Wikipedia. Otherwise, if you continue this course of action you will be reported for pov-pushing and obvious edit warring. You already violated the 3RR rule (3-revert-rule) by reverting people constantly who are trying to make even the smallest of changes to the article and thus trying to make a monopoly on the article, which is not allowed. Still, so far, I didn't report you for breaking that rule because I belive in compromise and discussion. And we did agree on a compromise solution a few months ago. But you reneged on that deal just 1 month later and reverted back to your own point of view edits without discussion. Next time I will be forced to report you. So please, if you have problems with the article talk to other editors, talk to me, discuss, instead of just accusing them off-hand of vandalism (when they are not commiting it) and engaging in edit warring. You have improved the article greatly unlike before when the article was really bare. But there are these few points which are simply not in line with Wikipedia policy. Keep up the good work. Cheers! MikeyTMNT (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)