User talk:142.104.35.116

Voter suppression

Canadian federal election, 2011

First, there is as yet no proof the Conservatives were involved. Second, this story is coming out almost a year after the election, so it is misleading to say they won "amid allegations of voter suppression". That's simply not true. If it were included in the lead, it shouldn't be shoehorned in the way you keep doing. Finally, you are edit warring, which is wholly inappropriate. The proper course is for you to start a discussion at the talk page.

Conservative Party of Canada

The article is about the Conservative Party, and discussing the controversy in any length there gives it undue weight. That is especially the case since, again, it has not been proven that the party itself had anything to do with the calls. Putting these allegations in the lead is beyond appropriate.

In general

You need to be aware that we must present the incidents in as neutral a way as possible, especially with regard to casting blame. One thing that is totally clear from the reporting to date is that we do now know who is responsible. It would be grossly irresponsible for Wikipedia to so much as imply that we know the Conservatives did it. It is essential for you that you cease violating our Neutral Point of View policy. -Rrius (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe "Plenty of biased and unproven alligations are present in this article in regards to the Conservative policies," the answer is to fix it, not to pile on crap on crap. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canadian federal election, 2011 and Conservative Party of Canada. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -Rrius (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem insistent on edit warring, apparently from several IPs based out of your university, I have protected both articles for a time to put a stop to this. The alternative is to begin blocking IPs, or perform a range block (which the University of Victoria may not appreciate). Please take the time to discuss any issues you may have on the talk pages of these two articles. Resolute 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Robocall scandal, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 70.248.189.190 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)