User talk:Post-modern truthsquad

Welcome!

Hello, Post-modern truthsquad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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 other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me my talk page. Again, welcome! Addhoc (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as post-modern truth? Cjs2111 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Addhoc (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something to stick, try citing it (heavily) with really mainstream, third party (i.e. institutions the people are not affiliated with) sources. That way, you not only demonstrate its legitimacy, but also that it was widely covered (notable). If all else fails, you can try to appeal to one of the higher administrators. Good luck. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Addhoc (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalisi

please come look at the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig historian (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Larkin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Larkin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Relata refero (disp.) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]