User talk:Dave-G

If you have the chance, I would love for you to stop by the Arstechnica article and look at some of the changes. I ask that you not revert at this time, as a little stability has been gained through additional references to back up criticisms. However, the users Tsetna and Clintology have been waging an edit war, through which they had been whitewashing the article. You can see some of the content in the Talk page, and some in the Administrator page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:216.227.82.35.2FUser:205.231.31.238_reported_by_User:Tsetna

Tsetna tried to get me admonished at the least for breaking the "three-revert rule", of which I had not previously been aware. Because he had two users doing his reverts, he was not technically in violation, while obviously to me attempting to lead me into doing it myself. This falls in line with many of his other quotes of "guideline violations", most of which seem unfounded.

In any case, I believe it would be helpful to have even more accurate citations regarding the criticisms, so that other editors can see that the criticisms are not just trolling. Please add these whenever you can.

I will be sending this same message to other editors who have expressed an interest in providing a balanced, neutral point of view in the Arstechnica article. If you know anyone else, who has not previously edited who would like to help, please pass this on.

For reference, I have found Google to be much faster than ArsTechnica's built-in search. Phrasing searches in the format: "search term 1" "search term 2" site:episteme.arstechnica.com has saved me loads of time.

Thanks for your time --216.227.82.35 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion of the Ars Technica article. You restored a seriously flawed version of the article. The flaws are well documented. Tsetna 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother, but Tsetna keeps reverting to a whitewash, claiming consensus (which he obv. doesn't have). I would appreciate any extra eyes on the article.--216.227.122.185 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert without discussion. It is not productive to just change it back and forth. --Ideogram 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]