User talk:Kadams810

June 2010

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in RealClearPolitics. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. 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. Thank you. Truthsort (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I have listed this account as the puppetmaster in a current sockpuppet investigation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting after protection was lifted at RealClearPolitics

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Though I have serious issues with how the editing of the RealClearPolitics page is being handled, I will continue to discuss on the talk page and will refrain from further page edits until there is a consensus. I understand I was wrong to continue to edit war. I respectfully request to be unblocked. Thank you.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per comment below.

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I've unblocked this account after receiving an assurance by e-mail that Kadams will use the talk-page from now on, rather than continuing to revert, and also that this is his or her only account. Good luck! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RCP

While I realize you are simply trying to reach a compromise, your suggested version does not address any of the primary issues to which caused the initial problem. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm with you 100%. The way this is going, though, they're going to keep sending us in circles until everyone gets fed up and nothing gets done. I'm only trying to get a more accurate version up on the page for now until we can figure out a way to get other editors to chime in or something. I am not giving up or accepting that the 'anti-christian bias' part should be in the intro, so I think we're on the same page. Per your comment on the RCP talk page, I'm open to (and would prefer) a version of the intro that has the stated goals of the site before the controversial quote, as you suggested.Kadams810 (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]