User talk:Life.temp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
 |
 |
[edit] Please
Life.temp, I'd laugh if you're increasingly vindicative behaviour weren't so frustrating. I explained in the edit summaries why the National Identity section was removed: it was merged in with the Origins section and Death to America is mentioned later. I discussed it with Henrik here. And note I didn't revert you fully; I moved the one sentence: "As the theory preceded the country's founding, Ceaser and Philippe Roger have interpreted it as a "pre-historic" anti-Americanism..." You've now got the same bloody point in their twice. Finally, it doesn't make sense to lead with O'Connor in Culture because all of the refs make essentially the same point, which is a very generic one; plus you are removing sentences that are supported by the refs (e.g., Trollope was decisive). Why? (Actually, don't answer that.)
Whatever. You have essentially ground any improvement to the article to a halt. And you are offering revert warnings? I mean, really. Marskell (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You were given a 3-revert warning because you reverted 3 times in 24 hours. End of story. As for the rest, the place to explain your reversion is Talk, usually after your first revert, definitely after the second, to say nothing of the third. Life.temp (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Life.temp, you're not an admin, you're involved in a dispute, and you are reverting yourself. Your warning is meaningless to me.
-
[edit] Sertraline
Please stop adding {{cn}} tags to the article lead. Per WP:LEAD, "[t]he necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." This is not a highly controversial statement, and may easily be verified a couple of sections down. I have already referenced a statement you previously tagged as needing a citation, and do not feel this one requires the same; furthermore, Paul gene (talk · contribs) has strenuously objected to the need for such citations. There is clearly no consensus, and if you do feel this statement must be cited, I suggest you leave a note on the article's Talk page asking how other editors feel. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is no exception to citation requirements for the lead. Leads are often pretty general, so sometimes it's not practical to cite a general statement which is broken down and cited more specifically later in the article. A statement like the one in question is very specific, and there is no reason to exempt from the obvious need for a citation. Also, this is untrue: "I have already referenced a statement you previously tagged as needing a citation." I've only tagged one statement; you didn't reference it, you changed the wording. It's the same basic statement as the one we're discussing now: an opinion that one treatment is better or worse than another. Life.temp (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize—it was another statement in the lead. Sorry about that. If you still feel certain statements in the lead should be referenced, I won't object—as long as it's reasonable :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You've been reported for edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule.
You've subsequently been reported for edit warring[1]
