User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


You must find a reliable source to establish verifiability, or your edits may be reverted. If you need any more help on this, feel free to ask me. And yes, before introducing a controversial statement such as

make sure that it adheres to wikipedia NPOV policy. --Flewis(talk) 05:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate the NPOV policy.

You did.

I have improved the edit, however. The citations are within the text of the article -- it was ruled unconstitutional. That is a very notable aspect and belongs up top.

Please stop committing vandalism. (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Find me the source, and then we'll discuss whether such a comment is appropriate. Edit warring is not the way to go. --Flewis(talk) 06:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, See Talk:National Security Letter and discuss the matter there. --Flewis(talk) 06:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Source is citations 17, 18, 19, and 20 on the VERY SAME PAGE. It is not good encylopedia practice to repeat all four citations up top. I agree that "generally considered" was bad, opinion-prone. language. Hence the change to "was ruled unconstitutional". I don't see your justification for reverting that. (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'be reverted my edit, and added a reference. --Flewis(talk) 06:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not "assuming good faith". It's been a trying day, and getting reverted for attempting to answer what seemed like an eminently reasonable discussion request.... well, sorry anyway. (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)