User talk:Examineroftruth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Regarding recent edits to Open pollination
Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit, with an edit summary labeling it vandalism. You may want to read what vandalism is and isn't before you continue to vandal fight. Many users quickly become upset if their edits are reverted and labeled as vandalism, so take care when reverting so that you do not accidentally undo a constructive edit. Cheers, FusionMix 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could provide some diff links on when Novangelis reverted Starfire to claim that constructive edits were vandalism? I looked in the edit history for the article in question, and Nova's edit summary stated nothing of the sort. Starfire has been blocked indefinitely, so it would not be strange if some of his edits were reverted as vandalism, but I do not see any on the pollination article. FusionMix 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What Seems
What seems is not an excuse to revert an edit. As anyone can see here: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1264745 Novangelis is a troll.
- I've just reviewed your additions to Arthur C. Clarke. There is a lot of speculation lacking reliable sources, and this constitutes original research, not to mention (in a couple of cases) unjustified synthesis. Please feel free to provide adequate sources for your content, but edit-warring will not be tolerated. I will remind your of the three-revert rule. If necessary, I will lock the page so this can be sorted out on the Talk page. Please also be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, per above comment and your edit summaries. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
--i just posted a short talk on "what seems" and perpetuate that shallow way of thinking? I just showed that Novangelis is a troll and you're still defending him Rod? Do you have a problem with understanding the definition of the word bias? I don't see you citing any references as to what the problem is with what is said in Arthur's religious section, created by Starfire, not Novangelis, who is insistent on messing with it to be a thorn in his side. You're not helping by posting baseless nonsense like what you did here. The only one complaining about the religious section, was a troll, who's reversion was undone, novangelis, and you. Stop making controversy over a statement backed up by http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Arthur_C_Clarke.html, or is that not a sufficient reference for your feelings? Stop helping a harasser unless you want to be known as one yourself. Examineroftruth (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I shall remind you one more time of our policy on personal attacks. Calling other editors "trolls" is not constructive, indeed is contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia. Your differences should be sorted out on the article's talk page. It has to be said that Novangelis has a point there that you might like to address. Meanwhile, I will not hesitate to protect this encyclopedia from unseemly behaviour by ANY editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry case
 |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kyleain(3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Novangelis (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
