User talk:Economy speak

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Accountancy. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Cost Accounting does not destroy value

This represents fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)since the whole world is doing this for centuries. It is an absolute no disagreement. There is no verifiable disagreement at all.

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Accountancy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of tags

[1] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Hu12 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism according to you is discussing an item in talk page.— Economy speak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Edit warring on Accountancy and Historical cost, 3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Hu12 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are too lazy too see that we are discussing the matter. Congratulations!! Please see the discussions going on now in Accountancy and Historical Cost.

Am I blocked from discussing too?

Why don´t you block my entrance onto Wikipedia.

Economy speak 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.--Hu12 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next rule blindfolded. go and look in your rule book what to do next. never think for your self and never read anything. Good show.

Please, go and look for the rule. There must be a rule for this. Just keep on looking.

I don't understand what you mean by "there must be a rule for this." There is a rule for this; it's WP:3RR, and it's already been followed. What happens next is, you take the 24 hours while you're blocked to cool down a little and find the reliable sources you'll need, and when you're unblocked, you can go to the talk pages and discuss things with other editors, but this time, you won't keep reverting until you've achieved consensus. I'm assuming, that is, that you're a smart person who wants to make the encyclopedia better and is still learning our procedures. If you're the other kind of editor, the kind who just keeps trying to force changes through and doesn't care about our procedures, then when the block expires, you'll go back to repeatedly reverting on articles, and get blocked forever. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]