User talk:Tyuia

Four Horsemen
Your summary is applicable to you, in point of fact. It is your opinion that the statements, which are accurate, factual, and sourced, are "POV". Your deletions remove information; of course what is left is "accurate"; it was already there. You object to what you removed, on what grounds, exactly? Personal dislike? Removing information is soapboxing, too. Magidin (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Enhanced interrogation techniques
Your deletion of reliably sourced content attributed to academic journal articles written by historians is not acceptable. This account, for all intents and purposes, has only nine edits in mainspace and appears to be a single-purpose account created and designed to make controversial edits. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the material for the second time. If you don't address it on the talk page, I'll report you. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jared Taylor
Do not revert changes without an edit comment. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Enhanced interrogation techniques. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was your fourth revert just now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, miscounted. Still at 3RR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I take offence at your "you know you're being dishonest, and you know consensus is against you". I am being perfectly honest, and I would appreciate that you spared me your personal accusations. I happen to honestly believe what I contend -- all respectable international bodies have ruled the practices of the Bush administration to be torture, and that the perpretors deny it (when they bother to) has no more weight here than it had with French torturers in Algeria, or with the Pinochet regime, to name only a few examples.

As for the consensus being against me, you reverted an edit, which was not made by me, to restore your edulcorated formulation; this should relativise the "consensus" to which you refer. Rama (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)