User talk:WriterIN

See Anthony Weiner photo scandal
There is a separate article for the Anthony Weiner photo scandal, and adding additional information there is appropriate and more than welcome. The Anthony Weiner page itself does not need to include every tidbit, just the essentials. 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner
In your undoing of my edit, you mentioned the Anthony Weiner article following "accepted form". Can you point me to any relevant Wikipedia policies that explain what you mean? I personally think this event is very relevant for his lead. Kansan (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Kansan, I've replied on your page. There are a couple of good reasons why it's not.--WriterIN (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't personally hate him (I consider myself a political moderate/independent), I'm just trying to make things easier on the reader coming here. And you certainly have raised a number of legitimate points here - I agree that when scandal strikes, we need to take care to avoid embellishing, denying, sensationalizing, or anything of the like. I'd like to see what the rest of the community thinks, so I posed this question on the main talk page of the article to gauge more input. Kansan (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anthony Weiner. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Grahamboat (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Grahamboat, thank you for your warning. Kansan and I are not warring, and we have opened the discussion in Anthony Weiner:Discussion. You are more than welcome to participate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterIN (talk • contribs) 04:56, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * WriterIN, it is certainly nice that you are being polite, but that does not take away the fact that you are edit warring per the definition of edit warring. You have been removing information contrary to the 3RR, and as indicated above, a further removal is grounds for an immediate block. Sometimes, users take such as warning as a "threat", so I will say preemptively, and in the interest of moving this discussion forward, that it is not. It is simply a warning of what may happen. Please see WP:3RR --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)