Your recent editing history at Brett Kimberlin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- FYI, I'm not a Kimberlin Groupie. The problem is that this is a flagrant violation of the BLP rules that are set aside for them. I'm afraid you are now at 3RR and cannot revert anymore. It simply cannot be inserted in. I'm protected by the rules since I would fall under #7. If you undo it again, I'm afraid I will be forced to report you. ViriiK (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
ViriiK why are you taking part in white washing Kimberlin's page? Last week there was the attempt to remove it. This week it's an edit to white wash it a little. There was no discussion before this edit was made. Let it go back to what it was and have a discussion first. Gotrexman (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not whitewashing anything. Your actions are increasing the likeliness of getting this article deleted. All Kimberlin or whoever that Justice guy has to do is petition again and say "They're willing to do anything to slander me". Knock it off. ViriiK (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- All Biographies of Living People must comply with the rules and your edit do not comply with that rule at all. The reason why that AfD failed was because it was within the rules. Your edit isn't and if you had edit-warred it in prior to that AfD request, it would have been granted and the article would have disappeared down the memory hole. ViriiK (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care. It's still against the BLP rules. You want to get it deleted outright instead on the 2nd attempt by JusticeLeader? ViriiK (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey ViriiK if you aren't a Kimberlin groupie and you have genuine concern for all Biographies of Living People that must complying with the rules I suggest you get busy editing the pages on John Angelo Gotti III, Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Hinckley, Jr and Jerry Sandusky. Because if Kimberlin a convicted bomber and drug dealer can't be called that then the Jerry Sandusky page can't say he is a 'convicted serial child molester' in the lead on his page. All the names I've listed have the same problem. Either apply the same standard to these people or edited the lead on the Kimberlin lead back to saying he is a convicted bomber and drug dealer. Gotrexman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a Kimberlin groupie, TYVM. You are only pushing the article towards a second attempt of deletion and after that point, a new article will not be possible to replace the deleted article. Think before you act. ViriiK (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is more than 1 rule at work here. For example WP:LABEL. Drop this conspiracy stuff. Are you advocating that this article should be permanently deleted? ViriiK (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
From your link:
"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."
Does that really apply in this situation? The man in question is a convicted bomber and drug dealer. This is undisputed! It isn't a vague label with connotations.
I'm not advocating it be deleted. The article is locked so I can't be edit it so are you telling that I that buy advocating my point of view it will get it deleted? Is that really how this place operates?
You want me to believe your an honest editor with out an agenda here then stop defending the obvious double standard. The standards you want to apply to Kimberlin isn't applied to others. Also why don't you take a good look at the person who locked the article. He is the person that had it deleted last year for questionable reasons. Gotrexman (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, please remember that Wikipedia MUST be written from a neutral point of view. A such I have edited your wording on Stacey Dash to make the part you added more neutral. You may also chime in on the discussion on whether the information is notable enough to be kept here. Thanks and have a great day. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)