User talk:Battleax86
Warning[edit]
Stop making controversial edits to 1953 Iranian coup d'état without a consensus or as much as an edit summary , removing well-sourced content ("ie removing democratically elected"_, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, what's "controversial" is putting in things like "democratically elected" to describe Mossadegh, as well as the way you completely downplay Iranian involvement in the coup. It's clear that you have a political motive to have the article read the way it did before, which is why you're opposing my attempts to make it less biased. You have no power to block me from editing it. Battleax86 (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The "democratically elected" is sourced by dozens of academic sources. Tempering with, and removing sourced material is against Wikipedia policies, for which you can be blocked. It's also against Wikipedia polices to make personal assumptions and comments about other contributors. I am going to ask you to stop for the last time. You should know better, you appear to be a WP:SPA, possibly a sock-puppet. Kurdo777 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Plenty of academic sources disagree with the assertion that Mossadegh was "democratically elected," especially in the capacity in which he held power by the time of coup. What's not in dispute is the fact that the Iranian military carried out the coup, a fact which you have no problem deleting. You also have no problem telling me I shouldn't be making "personal comments" about other contributors before proceeding to launch a personal attack (calling me a "sock-puppet"). Take the rod out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of mine. Battleax86 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should've known. From looking at your talk page, Kurdo, it seems you've been warned on five different occasions for getting into edit wars with other users on 1953 Iranian coup d'état page alone...yet you have the nerve to give me a "warning" or accuse me of being a single purpose account. Battleax86 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Final warning[edit]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- you need to gain consensus when your edits are disputed by others. In the past few weeks, you have made a dozen reverts on 1953 Iranian coup d'état, none of them accompanied with an edit summary or any attempt to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. This is disruptive behavior. If you make one more revert in such fashion, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
1953 coup[edit]
You have to explain your case on the talk page. Such as here --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed change in 1953 coup article[edit]
I'm soliciting active editors in coup article for a poll on this proposed change --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
May 2012[edit]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Chris Matthews. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I actually did no such thing. What I did was revise a description so that it was more understandable. The content remained unchanged. Battleax86 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- You "revised" a neutral, sourced description to a more extreme variant. Take this as a warning against unsourced and/or POV edits, especially in BLP articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking from a neutral point of view, I fail to see how the description I used is a more extreme variant of anything. On the contrary, it's a more readily understood descriptor and, in this case, one that has no practical delineation from the original one used. Furthermore, the original descriptor was not "sourced" in a way that established its legitimate use. The source used was one that verified the rest of the statement. Battleax86 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- You "revised" a neutral, sourced description to a more extreme variant. Take this as a warning against unsourced and/or POV edits, especially in BLP articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chris Matthews, you may be blocked from editing. SummerPhD (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- See above. Battleax86 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your suggested change is not supported by the source you have cited. That you "fail to see" is a moot point. Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- you need to gain consensus when your edits are disputed by others. In the past day, you have made a 5 disputed edits on Chris Matthews, none of them accompanied with an edit summary or any attempt to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. This is disruptive behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The change I made is, in fact, supported by the source I've cited. That you apparently require hand-holding to comprehend everything written on that page is a moot point. The disruptive behavior is not my edits, but your continued reversal of them. Please stop. Thanks. Battleax86 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your suggested change is not supported by the source you have cited. That you "fail to see" is a moot point. Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- you need to gain consensus when your edits are disputed by others. In the past day, you have made a 5 disputed edits on Chris Matthews, none of them accompanied with an edit summary or any attempt to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. This is disruptive behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)