User talk:7390r0g

Welcome!

Hello, 7390r0g, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 04:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this: The REAL Rudy is a stupid article because it's nothing but a forum to air political sniping, but it's all about a non-notable source. 7390r0g 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barack Obama

I happen to have a talk page that you should probably use when asking questions directed at me. As far as why I reverted the IP address's addition:

It is against Wikipedia's biography of living persons guideline to include potentially libelous information on an article's talk page when the only support for such claims is not a reliable source.
As has been covered over and over again on the talk page, Barack Obama is not and never has been Muslim.

Frankly, just because someone finds something scary on a blog does not mean they can run over to Wikipedia and post it on an article's talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close to 3RR violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I made (2) reverts only. But thanks for the heads up! 7390r0g (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of the cultural image of Obama is correct. The cultural image section is a tool that can easily be misused by supporters of the man who don't care about Wikipedia's neutrality. A fair person would admit that all politicians have some positive and negative images. The cultural image section omits lots of negative, but valid, images. Anyway, what is an image? It's opinion.

I edit Howard Dean. That article is better because there is no image section. FridayCell7 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

This is your last warning. Do not follow me to articles like you did at Talk:Miraculous catch of fish. It's pretty clear that your account is only used for disruption, so don't bother trying to explain yourself. I have no interest in hearing your excuses. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding is wrong - I found an RfC here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Religion_and_philosophy specifically requesting feedback from the community on the 153 question and I responded on the talk page as requested. I have never edited against this user on any page ever. I'm sorry that I crossed paths with her and I will make every effort to avoid her in the future. 7390r0g (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason you have not followed your own suggestion? You have not made any effort to avoid me, and you have continued to troll talk pages where I am active, going so far as to improperly use false consensus to shut down talk page discussion and article improvement. I don't know what to do at this point other than to file a SPI or ANI/I report. Which would you prefer? Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]