User talk:Truthjustice

Democratic Party Article

There are three paragraphs alluding to the closeness of the vote. It would appear that there is an agenda to give the impression that the election was stolen. This paragraph is just balance.

Hello. Somebody has made an edit to the Democratic Party (US) article several times adding a well-written but lengthy and unnecessary paragraph about Republican voter suppression in the Florida panhandle. I didn't trace down all of the people who made this edit, but you were the most recent. This article is about the Democratic Party, and although that information is interesting and valuable, it's not really appropriate for the article. The section you added contains information exclusively about Republican voters that pertains more specifically to the Florida 2000 election and its various controversies, and it is out of place in an article about the Democratic Party, whose history spans the better part of two centuries. Various contributors and editors have discussed this change in the talk page and agreed that it is not necessary. I'd prefer not to have a revert fight about it. If you'd like to argue in favor of your edit, please visit the talk page and engage the debate before adding the change back in again. Thanks for your time and attention. Bjsiders 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Changes

Hello again. I note that you continue to make your edit on the Democratic Party change. I would like to invite you again to continue to participate in the discussion on the paragraph and to please stop adding it back into the article when the consensus of the other editors is rather clearly against you. Please work to convince the article's contributors of the merits of your article instead of putting it in. Also, please be careful of accusing others of acting out of partisanship or other personal attacks. Finally, it's very helpful if you sign your comments by putting four tildes as the end of them, and add them to the end of talk sections that you edit. Bjsiders 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, hi there. There is an open invitation for you to debate the merits of your proposed addition to the Democratic Party article. I note with some dismay that you continue to engage in revert wars with various editors. I invite you again to return to the talk page and state your case. The bulk of the editors for that article remain unswayed, and engaging in revert fights is never a winning prospect. At best, you'll further alienate people who might otherwise be swayed by a compelling argument. At worst it can result in disciplinary action from administrators for all parties involved. Please consider going back to the talk page to work out a compromise. Also, your edit summaries indicate a lack of good faith which is a key tenant of the community. Please try to assume that your fellow editors are operating under motivations of intellectual integrity rather than some kind of agenda. Thanks and good editing. Bjsiders 18:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Jersyko·talk 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]