User talk:Ronaldc0224

November, 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks article
Can I ask you to participate properly in talk page discussions after your edits are responded to, per WP:BRD policy? We have struggled to keep the article (and the related Julian Assange one) open for responsible edits while having to deal with widely-differing opinions on the subject. It is inevitable that most people will see the article as biased one way or another, but at least by discussing issues we can attempt to find a compromise. If this proves impossible, the article is likely to be locked, making keeping it up-to-date much more difficult. I certainly don't want to see this happen, as it is a clear impediment to the objectives of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I would reiterate that this is not "criticism" and is instead a transitory estimate of the opinions of a select group.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've found another poll here, which at least gives figures for Britain and Canada as well as the US. You are probably right that polls don't really belong in the 'criticism' section - particularly when opinion is more or less evenly split, as appears to be the case in Canada and the UK. Perhaps we need a 'public opinion' section? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Casualties of the Iraq War has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. D6h! What's on your mind?  20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Casualties of the Iraq War constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Wikipelli  Talk   20:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that I strongly disagree with this claim of "vandalism". I think the passage i am editing is in violation of 1) WP:Weight and is in violation of 2) RS. The total basis of this supposed "Iraqiyun survey" is one article by UPI reporting what was said by another web posting on an obscure website called Islam Memo, which has been called, for example a "radical Islamic website" by Juan Cole, and worse by other sources which are actually RS. The passage I was editing, first, never actually describes the origin of this source and buries it with third and fourth hand references that add nothing but all lead back to the same one UPI article, and doesn't mention the actual originating source. Then the section is padded with non-RS refs to blog commentaries or an obscure book of someone called Nick Davies, which no notable or reliable sources ever cite. In the end the section is made longer than other notable sources such as Iraq Body Count or the ILCS study by the UN. I consider this section to be POV pushing and an attempt to launder this one dubious report of UPI - which was itself only reporting what was said in a web posting of a source that Wikipedia would never consider an RS - and which notable sources never cite, into a source worthy of about twice the word count of a notable source like a legitimate UN survey of 22,000 households in Iraq. You call editing this down to reality and revealing (rather than hiding with 3rd hard references) the original source of the info to be "vandalism". I think you are very mistaken.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply
-- D6h! What's on your mind?  20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)