User talk:Stradov

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties

Please see Talk:Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties#Criticism in lead sections. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take my advice and read WP:VER. New Scientist is a reliable third-party source and the information is notable. It's not our business to judge whether the information is truthful or not. The same rule applies to every source on the page. Dynablaster (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties. 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.

You have removed notable information from a reliable source 3 times in less than 24 hours. There remains the opportunity to self-revert. Dynablaster (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this report on the Administrators' noticeboard. Dynablaster (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to post a response after every preceding comment, below the signature to which it applies. I have chosen to format my reply point-by-point. You are free to do the same but you must do so beneath my signature. Unfortunately, you have broken my reply into several pieces and separated the signature, making discussion very difficult to follow. Interruptions of this nature are not permitted (please see talk page guidelines). I would much prefer it if you fixed the formatting to your own reply, rather then myself. Dynablaster (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and restored my original comment. Dynablaster (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynablaster, please stop making frivolous accusations of technical violations to intimidate other editors you're having a disagreement with. Thanks.Stradov (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]