User talk:TheCondor24
Club for Growth[edit]
Please refrain from deleting properly sourced, NPOV material from this article. Your edits were reverted because they were (1) highly POV/hyperbolic ("...in effect labeling him a Communist," "...placed the United States highest democratically elected official...," etc.), (2) inaccurate (what you describe as the "award" is not actually the award but a banner on the web site), (3) improperly formatted (citations), and (4) did not explain the actual purpose or criteria for the "award." Additionally, there is no reason to include the extraneous parenthetical "(defeated in 2006)" next to Chris Choccola's [edit: sic] name in the lede of the article when he is already identified as a "former Indiana congressman." As such, please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NPOV, particularly its sections on "Impartial tone" and "Let[ting] the facts speak for themselves" in order to avoid such issues in the future.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
1) An accurate and fair description of a hyperbolic award will itself seem hyperbolic. However, that is simply a product of the description's accuracy. 2) The term "award" is ambiguous. It may refer to an abstract object as in "Einstein won the Nobel Prize" or a concrete prize as in "I left my Grammy award on the table." The banner on the website appears as a trophy. That is, it is an award in the second sense of "award." 3) More detail is needed here. 4) Not all former congressmen who have new jobs were defeated. The parenthetical note clears up this ambiguity.
Mary Ann Glendon warring[edit]
Both you and PassionoftheDamon need to stop with the revert-warring at Mary Ann Glendon. The two of you are clearly engaged in a content dispute; edit summaries of "rv vandalism" are neither accurate nor helpful. Please take your dispute to the talk page, at the very least. Thanks. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]
Regarding reversions[1] made on June 1 2009 to Club for Growth[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sockpuppetry investigation[edit]
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCondor24. Thank you. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop reverting properly sourced edits. On the Mary Ann Glendon page, the statement that the invite was "controversial" is backed by a citation to a CBS News article and the statement that Obama has "strong pro-choice policies" is supported by a citation to his own web site, which touts his "strong pro-choice record."
On the Club for Growth page, your edits are unsourced (the references you provide do not support the claims for which they are cited) and blatantly POV and have been reverted by at least 2 other editors. The description of the award is quoted directly from the Club's web site itself (this is known as letting the facts speak for themselves), whereas you seek to judge and characterize the award according to your own political persuasions. Additionally, your edits attribute to the Club claims it did not make ("in effect labeling him a Communist"); utilize POV hyperbole ("...to the sitting president of the United States"; "This award placed the United States' highest democratically elected official into the "Comrade Hall of Shame"); mischaracterize the award (there is no physical award, and what you describe as the award -- "the flag of the Communist-ruled former Soviet Union" -- is merely a banner on the site linking to the article on the "award"); include incendiary and irrelevant information in an attempt to inflame passions ("...a party said to have been responsible for the death of as many as 60 million people"); and do not adhere to proper citation format.
The fact that you have resorted to sockpuppetry in the past and have unrepentantly resumed POV-pushing through edit warring as soon as your 3RR block expired demonstrates that you know little of Wikipedia policy and respect it even less. You would be wise to revise that delinquent attitude.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Block[edit]
I have blocked your account for one week for continued sockpuppetry. When your block expires, please do not create any further sockpuppet accounts or use IP addresses disruptively. Please note that if you do, your main account will receive a longer block, if not indefinite. If you wish to contest this block, you are welcome to add the text {{unblock|reason}} with a reason for an unblock. If you have any questions or concerns, you are welcome to contact me. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)