| Revision as of 20:06, 17 March 2011 editTentontunic (talk | contribs)2,163 edits →Communist terrorism: Respond to Paul.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:40, 17 March 2011 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,547 edits →Communist terrorismNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| Although your last removal of the section does not violate 1RR letter, it violates the spirit of the WP policy and, therefore is a pure edit warring. I suggest you to self-revert and to join a discussion on the talk page. Remember that consensus is not a right of veto.--] (]) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | Although your last removal of the section does not violate 1RR letter, it violates the spirit of the WP policy and, therefore is a pure edit warring. I suggest you to self-revert and to join a discussion on the talk page. Remember that consensus is not a right of veto.--] (]) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :I do not see it that way, as there is no consensus for inclusion of either your or my proposals it seems best to remove both until such a time as a consensus is reached. Given this article is under digwuren sanctions it seems prudent to remove obviously contentious material. ] (]) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | :I do not see it that way, as there is no consensus for inclusion of either your or my proposals it seems best to remove both until such a time as a consensus is reached. Given this article is under digwuren sanctions it seems prudent to remove obviously contentious material. ] (]) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::I suggest you self-revert. Also, some of your comments to Paul Siebert may be seen as personal attacks and should be re-ractored. ] (]) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:40, 17 March 2011
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
On using templates
Hello Tentontunic, as you might have seen I've come across some of your C class destroyer articles and noticed that you copied the entire code from the {{C class destroyer (1943)}} navigation box into the articles. That's really not needed because it's even the purpose of coded templates to have bulky code stored on a central place but to use it by applying a simple string. Like e.g. {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} you can use any template page title within curly brackets {{}} and the proper box or message will be displayed on the article page. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.: Having browsed your talk page archive I also noticed that you've basically been advised to add inline citations for each and every sentence in a paragraph. I just wanted to let you know that such a practice is utter nonsense and bad writing style in my opinion. Not only does it clutter the article it is not even recommended by Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Misplaced Pages:When to cite says very clearly that you need not cite every single sentence in a paragraph while using the same source for it (you should mention different sources though). And on a general note, inline citations are only required for potentially contentious material, for quotes and for directly copied phrases. So I would suggest being bold and developing your own judgment of when and where to cite additional sources with an inline tag. De728631 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I thought it would be overkill to use so many. Thanks for your help and advice. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
United States and state terrorism
You have now reached 3RR on this article. Please stop removing content from the article and work toward consensus. TFD (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- No I have not, look again. Tentontunic (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, you have exceeded 3RR. Please self revert your recent edits. TFD (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am unable to self revert due to slaterseven edit warring in content against policy, I still have not broken 3r though, but I am quite certain you shall take great pleasure in reporting me anyway, have fun. Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to WP, where the United States is a terrorist organization, communist terrorists are mislabeled left-wingers, and communist genocide does not exist. Let's not forget the USSR being the kinder, gentler occupiers, really, just a friendly intervention. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)- I know, it`s insane isn`t it. But who ever said there was no communist genocide? That would be, well madness to say. Tentontunic (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to WP, where the United States is a terrorist organization, communist terrorists are mislabeled left-wingers, and communist genocide does not exist. Let's not forget the USSR being the kinder, gentler occupiers, really, just a friendly intervention. PЄTЄRS
- I am unable to self revert due to slaterseven edit warring in content against policy, I still have not broken 3r though, but I am quite certain you shall take great pleasure in reporting me anyway, have fun. Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, you have exceeded 3RR. Please self revert your recent edits. TFD (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you keep to 1RR. Not breaking 3RR still means you can be blocked for edit warring. See also WP:BRD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I second that. Formal adherence to the 3RR rule is not sufficient when the spirit of the WP policy is violated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Communist terrorism
Although your last removal of the section does not violate 1RR letter, it violates the spirit of the WP policy and, therefore is a pure edit warring. I suggest you to self-revert and to join a discussion on the talk page. Remember that consensus is not a right of veto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see it that way, as there is no consensus for inclusion of either your or my proposals it seems best to remove both until such a time as a consensus is reached. Given this article is under digwuren sanctions it seems prudent to remove obviously contentious material. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest you self-revert. Also, some of your comments to Paul Siebert may be seen as personal attacks and should be re-ractored. TFD (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)