User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Abortion/breast cancer

Heads up! RoyBoy, the wiki editor responsible for most of the material you rightfully deleted from the "Abortion Breast Cancer Hypothesis" article, has left a long comment on that article's talk page, and may be planning to repost some of the materiel you deleted. Check the article frequently and stand by to take action! Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Do please remember, though, that we editors are all in this project together to improve the encyclopedia despite our differences of opinion. We need to treat each other with collegiality and respect. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis/Archive_4#Mixed_results_in_Lead

When you originally brought up primary sourcing objection, I replied with my position and a question mark... why didn't you reply? Just curious. - RoyBoy 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

At this late remove I really could not say, but at a guess either it was because the discussion had moved on before I saw your reply or because I try not to add to the general noise level once I have made my point. ::shrug:: - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Froglich

You should take a look at User talk:Froglich where he's calling for you to be de-sysoped. Did you use the right blocking template? Your reason for the block wasn't 3RR but just edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, he's accusing you of blocking for 3RR. And you saw that. He's pretty clueless, wants everyone blocked and banned. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks pretty much like I expected based on their editing and comments; ah well. Thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Loved this: "specifically calling me out by name at a time when you know that I cannot comment due to the block your comrade-in-arms has placed upon me -- a sneaky little shit Niedermeyer tactic if ever)". Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to look that one up - I think I have not seen that movie since college. Good times, good times. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you two (Hello, Dougweller!) are having fun here, despite proceeding on the basis of an absurd lie. What is edit-warring? Let's check and see: Vandalism? Nope; didn't do that. Overriding policies? Nope; didn't do that. ...and that pretty much leaves 3RR, in this case, my three edits on the 19th, 25th and 26th (a seven-day stretch) hardly qualify while Gaba was pushing WP:gaming the system with four in a two-day period. I consider your behavior in this matter to be poor.--Froglich (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of sections containing anything relating to US official support of an FTO

Is there a reason you prefer to entirely censor any reference to national security officials whom have provided material support to an FTO? The articles were repeatedly revised to meet an impossible quality standard. How precisely can you propose WP as an objective entity when the only allowable reference to these peoples actions is to remove all references to it? Moreover, some of the instances you reverted back to are far far less objective, worded in a very leading manner, etc-- seriously, one of them references the group as a "terrorist" group, implying that they don't partake in terrorism or where not listed on the FTO. It's all going back in as soon as the lock expires. This isn't about being pro-Iran, this is about being anti-having another 11-sept or Libya embassy attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.190 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)