User talk:TharsHammar/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Will Beback   talk    06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Keith Olbermann 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, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutz
I ended up reverting to a previous version. It was vandalized recently. Thanks for the alert. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:
You have twice previously blocked the user WebHamster, so you must be aware of his previous problems. Recently he has been engaging in some extremely uncivil behavior at and  and. Would you please consider reapplying that block? TharsHammar (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left him a warning. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

email
Have you considered enabling email? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do I do that? TharsHammar (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the "My preferences" tab. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. TharsHammar (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann
Hi TharsHammar, Per the talk page of this article, I like the "trimming" you have down. I still feel this bio could be about 1/2 the size and still hit all the "high/low lights" as it were. I am specifically concerned about the "material", from statements made by the subject less than two eeeks ago, that keeps getting reinserted into the article. If this is a huge "story", ect than time will tell and then maybe include it based on reliable sources and not just blogs and opinion pieces. Also, the amount of space given to this seems undue. Anyways, I thought I would get your input and will probably try to get others involved as well, maybe on the BLP board again. Thank you for your input either way,--Tom (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it is a painful process to go in and remove so much sourced information. I will try having another go about it later today or tomorrow.  Please look at my suggestion of splitting off the controversies. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice you have already done that. Maybe at this time we should seek a Request for comment on that proposal, or take the material to an approriate noticeboard? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After further thought, I am not sure that a sub article is needed, and I like I mentioned, I believe the current consesus is that they be avoided if possible. Anyways, no bigie, and yes the more eyes involved, hopefully the better these things turn out. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition in question was entirely appropriate as the editor in question has engaged in 4 reverts in the last 30 hours, and I was providing a helpful reminder . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick Morris
Thank you for adding references to the "Dick Morris" article -- having them does make it more difficult for the politically-motivated to attempt to clean up his repugnant image by removing unpleasant but true information from the article. -- Davidkevin (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh shootings
Hey TharsHammer, would you mind if I nominated 2009 Pittsburgh police shooting for WP:DYK on your behalf?  Grsz 11  17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I'm not sure what WP:DYK is all about, but feel free! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The bit I removed seemed kinda out there, that's all. It's fine with a source, but I don't feel the bit about alligators is appropriate.  Grsz 11  00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. The alligator thing is really odd, so I looked it up and found a source to add.  I was only adding the source, not weighing in on if the material should or should not be added. Your most recent edit is all find with me.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Beauchamp Controversy
I'm mystified about others' inability to use the article's talk page to discuss the recent controversial changes. Remember that edit warring is prohibited. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been using the articles's talk page. I hope the IP address who edited the article before you was not a sockpuppet employed to prevent you from edit-warring and make it look like more people are on your side. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you're new here...
you probably weren't aware that it's considered very bad form to template the regulars. And no, I was not in violation of 3RR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably also know its bad form to edit war. I was posting a helpful reminder, along with brief sentence at the end.  And yes, you were in violation. See     and . If you continue to edit war I will report you. Have a nice day. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Few of those edits have anything to do with each other. You don't seem to understand how 3RR works. It's not a prohibition on making more than 3 edits to a page.   Feel free to waste your time filling out a 3RR report (if you know how), but I can already tell you that the result will be "Closed. No 3RR Violation."    --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that comment wasn't really appropriate, or correct. I don't like it when people who are engaging in edit wars use a 3rr warning within an edit summary.  It strikes me as a scare tactic.  And on Nancy Pelosi I was up against the 3RR, so I didn't want to make any further reverts to the article.  I noticed you made an obvious mistake and kindly informed you that I would appreciate a change. The 3rr warning was a helpful reminder, I could have gone straight to the 3rr noticeboard with something along the lines of
 * {|class="prettytable collapsible collapsed"

!3RR report for User:Loonymonkey

User:Loonymonkey reported by TharsHammarBits andPieces (Result: )
. : Time reported: 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 21:25, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "rmv current event tag")
 * This was a contentious revert, as the current events tag had been added yesterday . TharsHammar Bits andPieces

2. 00:23, 28 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286547393 by Jm131284 (talk) No need to put your editorial spin on it.  Let the reader decide where they fall.")
 * 00:32, 28 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* "Astroturfing" */ remove weasel words.  Stick to the facts and plain language in these situations.")
 * 00:33, 28 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* "Astroturfing" */ rmv wikilink within quote per WP:MOS")
 * These were 3 consecutive edits, and thus constitute 1 revert. The edit summaries clearly show they were reverts

3. 00:36, 28 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286551179 by Jm131284 No, the MM article does not say that and anyway WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Discuss on talk before adding again, please.")
 * Edit summary explains clearly it was a revert

4. 00:42, 28 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286552908 by Jm131284 You have now officially broken WP:3RR with your edit-warring. Please stop and discuss.")
 * Edit summary explains clearly it was a revert.

Link of warning is here. The user informed me that they are a regular here. —TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * }
 * I apologize for templating you. I can see now why it is suggested not to template the regulars ;-). TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could have filed such a report, but it wouldn't have resulted in a 3RR violation. It would have simply been closed (probably with a note on your talk page explaining what 3RR violations are).  Again, those edits don't have anything to do with each other and can not be considered edit-warring (whether you agree with them or not).  In fact, you've included ridiculously minor WP:MOS cleanups in your pretend report which is sort of funny.   3RR is not designed to stop people from wasting their time on lots and lots of edits.  If that were the case, this would be a much quieter place!


 * Time to call it a day. Take care. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Media Research Center appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. The Red Peacock (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the editor in question initially objected to material and cited WP:RS . Upon viewing the source, and watching the attached video clip and reading the transcript it is clear that the source is reliable for the quotation used, so I reverted his edits with a helpful edit summary . The user has now inserted a templated warning on my talk page about WP:NPOV, which is an asinine response.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejean
As I mentioned on AN/I, I think your version was good and if you want any help (not vote, but editing) I would be willing (unless you are satisfied with the version currently being used). Soxwon (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLPN not AN/I? Yes I think the wording is the best we can have in the face of an obstinate editor. Personally I felt that Hilton's full quote should be in there, but in the spirit of compromise I proposed that version. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did mean BLPN. Though I think the entire quote from Prejean is a bit much. Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I would say its best to air on the side of caution, lest we be accused of taking her quote out of context in a NPOV way. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Be a man dude. If you have some beef with me then talk to me about it instead of being a coward filing bogus reports in the hopes of getting me blocked or in trouble over the whole breast image thing. Get off my case.  Caden  is cool  10:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. Caden, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Surreal
Someone was serious about that? Lady of Shalott 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

re Wanda Sykes and Rush Limbaugh
Please at least pretend to know what you're talking about. This subject is covered in Rush_Limbaugh. Note, it's not Obama he's commenting on, it's his policies, hence the name of that section of the article. Regards, Tomertalk 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From rushlimbaugh.com "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point.  Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say.  Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that."  Why not?  Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.  Why do I want more of it?  I don't care what the Drive-By story is.  I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails."  Somebody's gotta say it." .  Not really seeing "socialism" in there.  Finally do NOT use personal attacks against me again. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorize "liberalism" as you please, it was Obama's socialist policies, under the guise of "liberalism", that Limbaugh was referring to, as he has made clear numerous times since. In any case, it was not Obama that he wanted to fail, it was his policies.  Ms. Sykes, whether deliberately or not, took the mischaracterization of Limbaugh's statement a step further, asserting that Limbaugh wanted America to fail.
 * As for personal attacks, do NOT mischaracterize my assertion that you are incorrect as a "personal attack against [you]" again. Tomertalk 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a mis-characterization, you said, and I quote "Please at least pretend to know what you're talking about." Now we can have disagreements on the gray area of liberalism but personal attacks such as this will not be tolerated. Have a good day sir/madam. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack...if anything it was tit for tat. You reverted an edit to Wanda Sykes which was clearly not vandalism, asserting that it was, then accused me of not knowing what vandalism was when I reverted it, observing that it didn't appear to be vandalism. I didn't throw mud in your eye until you'd thrown it in mine...so, unless you're prepared to admit you personally attacked me, I'll continue to dismiss your assertion that I've personally attacked you as spurious. In any case, back to the relevant matter, I've altered the wording of the pertinent sentence in the article to replace the word "socialist" with "liberal". Tomertalk 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. TShilo12, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is my compromise proposal acceptable?. Soxwon (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Acceptable, and not worth getting milk spilled over. It is my opinion that Wanda was responding to the more imflamatory quote, Limbaugh saying "I hope he fails." rather than the more neutral, I hope his liberal policies fails quote, if you know what I mean.  Limbaugh might have said at another point that he hoped Obama's liberal policies would fail, but he also said "I hope he fails" which is what Wanda was responding to in all sources that I have seen, and the source that I used.  But I am sure that would never stand in the article :) so its not worth arguing over. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And for record I'm not stalking you, I noticed the Eric Cantor article on the AN/I boards and got curious (he's my representative). That led here. Soxwon (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Stalking applies only to harassment, and you definitely not been doing that.  You have provided some good compromise suggestions. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar Bias / Repeated POV Violations
TharsHammar seems to be consistently advancing his ideological agenda on numerous articles, rather than following the protocols and decorum expected in the Wikipedia community. His repeated and consistent POV violations are extremely damaging to the project and the quality of the work contained within. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note this is about Eric Cantor vis-a-vi VP in the 2008 campaign. I created the discussion on the talk page  and have not edited the article since.  You on the other hand have reverted the article at least 6 times against 4 different editors. I post this to let the record stand for itself. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A simple glance up this discussion page is proof enough of your record and conduct. Future editors who have runs in with you, should take comfort in this record as evidence of your conduct. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. 98.218.204.115, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting
Please don't spam AfDs which already have plenty of contributors to tangentially related deletion sorting lists. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was just tryin to help out. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop
Leave off Collect now... he's stated his opinion, you've stated yours, and the rest is simple disruption. -- SB_Johnny | talk  14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you would leave similar messages for both users. Especially since he began the track of commenting on contributors and not content. But it is what it is. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has a history of being warned by me, so shorthand works. You don't, hence no shorthand. -- SB_Johnny | talk  14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reasoning. It is much appreciated and explains the situation.  Thanks. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

you have two cows
I've left a historical note on the AFD page regarding this page. Articles_for_deletion/You_have_two_cows_(2nd_nomination) Manning (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that note. I personally got a good laugh at that joke. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam


FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello TharsHammar! Thank you so much for your support in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust.  Flying Toaster 

Beauchamp
"Mohummy" and the anon IP (hmmmm...) seem intent on provoking a 3RR violation via their edit war. I've stated it more judiciously on the article Talk page, but I'm under no illusion about what is going on: because they do not have any reasonable arguments to support blanking the sourced info, Mohummy, et al. are using a meaningless "word salad" ("BLP problems!", "tenditious [sic]!", "see above!"), which they barf up whenever they want to vandalize the page. --StephenLaurie (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Usual suspect(s) are at it again. Just a heads-up. -StephenLaurie (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to start a SPI on Mohummy and the IP. There are coincidences between their editing habits that extend beyond the Beauchamp article.  For example, see  and, and their interactions with user Canadian  and .  Not to mention  and .  I think that Mohummy and the IP are one in the same, I don't know if they are Canadian too.  What are your thoughts? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean
I think that between you, InaMaka, and I (and other parties on the talk page) that none of us touch "that section" of the article, except for vandalism reversion, until the RFC runs its course. Hopefully that will drop the temperature a bit. I'd rather it stay with InaMaka's version, however wrong I think it is, than to get into a blockable edit war about it. Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching it again for awhile. Its just sad how InaMaka has been a 1 user edit warrior over it.  I firmly believe that if consensus is on your side that someone will come around and make the change after you are reverted once or twice.  InaMaka has been a problem at that article for over a month, and its a shame admins have not taken a tougher stand with his/her slow rolling edit warring.  He has reverted that one line over 20 times. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth dates
I wanted to make sure you saw this and to point you to BLP. I think the reason for keeping birth dates out of articles is privacy, since birth dates are sometimes used to confirm identity. Or it may just be an original research concern. Either way, it's policy.--chaser (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Would  be an acceptable source?  Since it says "She turns 18 on October 18" and the article was published in 2008, indicating October 18, 1990 as a birth date. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely . Good find.--chaser (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at  (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support and I was glad I was able to ease your concerns regarding your question. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

About Sotomayor
While at Princeton she wrote a thesis titled, "Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture"where she argues that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes that the military, not the people, have this right. In this thesis she states that, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights. [ http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-on-the-supreme-court-a-gun-grabbers-dream-come-true/ ] 

What is wrong with the Ron Paul website, the Infowars website, the Jumpinginpools website, and Moonbattery website? These are NOT satire sites, especially with Infowars, nor is the piece I referenced a, "satire piece about a living person." These, and many others I did not link to, are NEWS SITES that have far more credability that NY Times and the Washington Post, and they are REPORTING on an article she wrote in college. These references are every bit as good as many of the references in this section on Sotomayor.

Look, I saw on your site that you voted for Obama, but that does NOT mean you should sit there and censor the TRUTH from gettng to the people. If the people knew she has this stance, at the very least, they would just demand that she be asked about her position on gun control at her confirmation hearing. Why do you want to cover this up? Let her stand for who she is, and defend her position as a gun grabber that believes the 2nd amendment made owning a gun illegal.

Seriuosly man, this is the SUPREME COURT we are talking about, and it not only appears that she is racist, but it also appears she is delusional when it comes to interpreting the common English language as it appears in the CONSTITUTION. Don't you think that matters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeinTX (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay enough with the personal attack. Look at the origional piece, which they rely on.  Its the jumpinginpools piece.  At the bottom there is a "satire" tag.  If you want a RS that looks at this issue take a look here.  Its under the "Internet Urban Legends" "On a lighter note, shortly after Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, an article, supposedly written by a Nathan Figler of American News, Inc, began to appear on various internet sites and was even repeated by Fox News.


 * In this supposed news article, Ms. Sotomayor is accused of having penned three legal theses while at Princeton Law including one entitled Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture in which she was reported to have stated that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She supposedly went on to make the amazing assertion that the passage of the Bill of Rights actually made individual ownership of firearms illegal.


 * There are any number of issues with this report, starting with the fact that the website given for American News, Inc is non-existent, Nathan Figler does not appear to be a journalist, Princeton Law only requires one thesis (although they do write several junior papers), and finally, the entire article seems to be written to cater to the worst fears of conservatives.


 * We have a number of real cases where Judge Sotomayor’s opinions about gun rights are made evident. We do not need to make ourselves look foolish by buying into urban legends.
 * Thanks, and please stick to stuff that actually exists. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Really?
Did you just call me an edit warrior in your edit summary? I've actually made an attempt to discuss this on the talk page, something you haven't done yet. Also, I never questioned if FoxNews was reliable, but the appropriateness of the information in the article is what I'm concerned with. AniMate draw  23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I discussed the issue a few days ago, . You said in your edit summary, "private communication that hasn't been coroborated" (your spelling error, not mine).  That indicates you are concerned about the reliability of the information, but since it comes from FoxN (which unforunately IS considered a WP:RS it has been corroborated to standards needed here. And since you have removed the essentially the same text in quick secession  and  I thought that edit warrior statement an apt summary.TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't quick. The editor reinserted the material saying not to remove it without discussion. I started a topic and waited an hour for the editor respond. He didn't so I removed it again. According to Prejean, she hasn't seen the emails and all of them haven't been released. Considering the information is already stated in the article, what exactly is the point of including the leaked email? Accusations of edit warring are serious, as I'm sure you know. I have patiently and thoughtfully worked on that article, utilizing the talk page frequently and in good faith and more often than not agreeing with you. Your description of me as an edit warrior are extremely insulting, full of bad faith, and a borderline personal attack. AniMate draw  23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have patience. Not everyone edits wikipedia 24/7, and the editor in question hasn't edited since the last edit to Prejean, so maybe he hasn't seen your comments yet .  Also a discussion takes at least 2 people, that hadn't happened by the time you made the deletion. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I had waited longer I wouldn't be an edit warrior. Great. I guess since you didn't discuss the change first or wait very long to undo it, you're an edit warrior as well.. Describing good faith editors in such a way creates a toxic environment and shows a real lack of respect. I'm disappointed, but won't be editing that article again. AniMate draw  23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder than words, and if you really do follow through on that promise doing so speaks a lot louder than announcing it before hand, see The Last Word for a description of what I mean. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely done, though the condescension is duly noted. A piece of advice, it's not a good idea to call a good faith editor who is willing to talk differences out an edit warrior. It's unnecessary, provocative, and insulting. Rather than being an adult and saying "Sorry, but I really disagreed with your edits", you've talked down to me. Well done. I read the essay. I'm not withdrawing so I can claim I have won the debate, and I'm not attempting to game any of our processes to win this editorial dispute. I'm withdrawing because it's just not fun working with someone who insults you. I don't edit wikipedia to forward any social or political agenda. I edit it because I enjoy it and I'm always learning new things. For a while I was focused on articles that dealt with the Holocaust and WWII in Croatia. I had to stop because the partisan fighting and constant insults made working on those articles unpleasant. You've insulted me twice now by calling me an edit warrior and pointing me towards that snarky essay. Why would I want to come back to that article at all? Despite what that essay said, I am going to remind you to assume good faith in the future. We were working on that article collegially in the face of some very strong POV pushers, so you're treatment of me is pretty disappointing. AniMate  draw  01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)