In reviewing your history of edits, it looks like none of your edits have ultimately been accepted by other editors. If you want to be a productive editor, you're going to have to act more in accordance with the policies laid out in WP:NPOV and WP:Attribution. When you make an edit that others consider controversial, you need to be able to demonstrate, with references to WP:Reliable sources, that your edit either represents something widely accepted by all scholars in the field, or alternatively, represents one opinion among several in a way that is in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
In controversial subjects, scholars in the field have varying opinions. These multiple opinions should all be represented in a WP article, and the amount of coverage given to each view should be in proportion to how widely accepted that view is. If a passage is describing one opinion among many, it has to be written in a way that acknowledges that there are other opinions. So while it is essential that controversial edits be supported with citations, the fact that material is "sourced" is not always sufficient to justify an edit. A well-sourced edit that presents only one side of a controversy and doesn't acknowledge other opinions is not a good edit.
In some cases, as here and here, you have simply deleted material that you disagree with, removing the coverage of one side of a controversy. This sort of edit isn't going to "fly" with other editors.
Finally, please do not refer to edits that you disagree with as "vandalism," as you did here and here. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning in WP (see WP:Vandalism). Misusing the term is considered a form of personal attack, and is prohibited by the WP:No personal attacks policy.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khmer Rouge. Note that the three-revert rule 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. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Bobblehead(rants)01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. I did warn you. I've reported you for violating 3RR on Khmer Rouge.[1] It appears that your preferred version for the article is not the consensus version. If you feel that your version should have consensus, please discuss your changes on the talk page. --Bobblehead(rants)17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. — Signaturebrendel18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned above that referring to good faith edits that you disagreed with as "vandalism" is a form of personal attack, yet you repeated this action here. If you persist in this sort of disruptive behavior, you are likely to find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. RedSpruce01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khmer Rouge. Note that the three-revert rule 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. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
