Revision as of 18:25, 27 November 2008 edit99.137.127.111 (talk) →Three revert rule← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:23, 27 November 2008 edit undoSouthern Command Stooge (talk | contribs)43 edits →Three revert ruleNext edit → | ||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
::::::Why don't you post your supposed merits of your anonymous-not-authorized-based inclusions on ] so we can all have a look at why you think they are any good? In the mean time you are being reported on the reliable sources noticeboard. ] (]) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | ::::::Why don't you post your supposed merits of your anonymous-not-authorized-based inclusions on ] so we can all have a look at why you think they are any good? In the mean time you are being reported on the reliable sources noticeboard. ] (]) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::I'd welcome a discussion about the reliability of the newspapers. I could also provide links to other newspapers if there are problems with these two individual ones that I am not aware of.--] (]) 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | :::::::I'd welcome a discussion about the reliability of the newspapers. I could also provide links to other newspapers if there are problems with these two individual ones that I am not aware of.--] (]) 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Yeah, sure, you say you welcome discussion, but when it comes right down to it you and . I'm from Indiana myself so it's hard for me to not take the kind of stupidity evident from your edits personally. If you can't defend your edits, then it's best you do step aside and let the grownups handle it. ] (]) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:23, 27 November 2008
Welcome!
|
I would like to encourage you to create an account, so that you can begin to build a reputation. :) All the best! sinneed (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Some might say..
..that is a bad thing. I personally look at it as one's life and accept the knowledge and learning that it provides. Thanks for the note and I will ditto the thought above about choosing a user name; it is the first step in learning to be bold. Bring your pov with you and, naturally, good reliable RSs. Bias is inevitable, but success of the project depends on acceptance of WP:NPOV. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Summary style
Of course, you'd need to create an account to be able to create new articles, per WP:SUMMARY. If you can abide by WP:RS, I'd encourage you to do so. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what your problem with the reliability of newspapers is.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Three revert rule
I'm going to have to ask you to read this very carefully: WP:3RR. We are in a situation where you are claiming to be censored, and you have made three reversions in the past hour or so. I've made two, and I'm going to be making a third pretty soon. This will put us both "up against 3RR" as they say, and will cause us to be unable to make any further reverts to Iraq War. Do you understand? Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure which specific edits you are talking about, if you could provide them this would be useful.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have made three reversions:
- I have made two:
- Do you agree; if not, why not? Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I edited in the information about restrictions after you made your edits, hence my number of edits should be equal to yours minus one. I'm looking through the links though.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- That you seem intent on counting the number of edits to get your preferred version of the article is discouraging.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- That you seem intent on wanting an effigy-burning in the intro is making me want to kick a puppy. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it happened too, but apparently it did if any of these garbage newspapers are to be believed.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- And for the edit counters, we would both be at three. You either forgot to count your initial edits or you shouldn't have counted mine. But we are currently equal.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you post your supposed merits of your anonymous-not-authorized-based inclusions on Talk:Iraq War so we can all have a look at why you think they are any good? In the mean time you are being reported on the reliable sources noticeboard. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd welcome a discussion about the reliability of the newspapers. I could also provide links to other newspapers if there are problems with these two individual ones that I am not aware of.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, you say you welcome discussion, but when it comes right down to it you turn tail and run away. I'm from Indiana myself so it's hard for me to not take the kind of stupidity evident from your edits personally. If you can't defend your edits, then it's best you do step aside and let the grownups handle it. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd welcome a discussion about the reliability of the newspapers. I could also provide links to other newspapers if there are problems with these two individual ones that I am not aware of.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you post your supposed merits of your anonymous-not-authorized-based inclusions on Talk:Iraq War so we can all have a look at why you think they are any good? In the mean time you are being reported on the reliable sources noticeboard. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- That you seem intent on wanting an effigy-burning in the intro is making me want to kick a puppy. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)