User talk:Cantsi Wontsi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janet Napolitano. 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.

Welcome

Hello, Cantsi Wontsi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Brusegadi (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Hello. Please review the concept of Good Faith before resorting to accusations of vandalism when edits contrary to your point of view are made. The issue of DHS's Right-Wing Extremism assessment was already present under a different heading in Janet Napolitano's article. Thanks - JeffJonez (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 Janet Napolitano article

Ah yes, thank you for updating me on that. I'm sorry I'm afraid I didn't read the full article again after they deleted my Criticism section. After your comment I went back and read it, and realized that the content of my criticism section had been reformatted and put into the preceding section. So my post wasn't simply deleted it was used and absorbed into the previous section of the article. So a big thank you to whoever did this! Thanks for the update. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your continued insertion of rants in the talk page: please read WP:SOAP, specifically the part up top that says: content hosted in Wikipedia is not [...] Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. - JeffJonez (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to stop your repeated attempts at sneakily deleting the parts of the Janet Napolitano article that don't fit your political views. It's just not working, is it? -- JeffJonez (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]