User talk:V7-sport/Archive 2

December 2010
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to United States and state terrorism. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for SOAPBOXing, such as asserting the views of the United States legislature above and beyond reliable secondary sources by blanking an entire article leaving only the opinions of the United States legislature as interpreted by you based on primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX adequately answers your questions. I strongly suggest you read policy regarding promoting a particular set of political beliefs. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States and state terrorism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Badger Drink (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleting over 100kb of content does not in any way merit a good faith reply to the question of "what did I delete". See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stop playing the part of the diligent process wonk - it's been done to death. Badger Drink (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop being duplicitous. You know full well what you did, if you're so ashamed of it that you can't be upfront about it then perhaps you should reconsider your approach to intellectual collaboration. Badger Drink (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

3rr warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on United States and state terrorism. 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.

Re extended discussion at RfC
I have moved the rather long discussion to its own subsection to try to make the rfc itself less daunting for outside editors, please check that I didn't inadvertently mangle the text. I hope that is ok :) un☯mi 10:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) Happy New Year un</b><b style="color:#779">☯</b><b style="color:#679">m</b><b style="color:#579">i</b></i> 11:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

terrorism
I'm going off on a wikibreak. Perhaps in two weeks or so. Thanks for the invite!--S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PA
Calling other users names is not a good idea its A PA.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Its best that if you start to lose it and name call back to leave it a bit. its not worth getting a block over.Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

editing other comments
Its generaly frowned upon to edit the comments of another edd.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC) This one[] Where you alter the message of an Edd with whome you are in serious dispute. Its not actualy altering what they say but its not a good idea all the same.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I have now launched an ANI over the deterioating situation over at Talk:United States and state terrorism here General problom at Talk:United States and state terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy does it
You should tone down the rhetoric and try to improve the article one sentence at a time. Focus on text, not editors, and get some books on the subject written by top experts, preferably those respected by mainstream academia. Jehochman Talk 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I have opened an ANI thread about your edits to Richard A. Falk. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the first indication that I get that you have an issue with something I have written is an ANI. Thanks for the introduction. V7-sport (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Falk
Not sure what you mean -- I haven't edited the lead section, and my last edit was Jan. 25. AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited the lead paragraph of that article that I remember (certainly not recently)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * However, that was in section 4.3, not the "lead"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)