User talk:7oceans

Welcome!

Hello, 7oceans, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi, I was wondering what your reason was for reverting the edits about Vivek Kundra's Leave from CIO, since you did not specify a reason.Truprint (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an oversight not to leave a reason. Having followed this discussion for a month, this appears to be another concerted and backhanded attempt to inject the reference to Kundra's 1996 "indiscretion" into the page. This has been discussed ad infinitum. In the discussion 'Regarding Arrest' there was consensus that was reached that Kundra's BLP was to be held to the same standard as President George W. Bush's WP page and that this content had no place here. To tie together an irrelevant investigation seems like a sketchy and far fetched attempt of a tabloid paper. It is my intent to adhere to WP:BLP standards of not being "sensationalist". This has lately been the bane of WP. --7oceans (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicion of sockpuppetry on the account that you made exactly the same edits as the anonymous IP, and you just happened to start editing again right after the IP was blocked (you were inactive for a month). Coincidence? I think not. By the way, other editors also share such suspicions. See [1] for more information. -Reconsider the static (talk)

Haha, good luck following that up. Report me, I dare you. :) -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content". Yep, I'm still waiting for your reply on the article talk page. You're initiating the controversial change (removal of content) so it is actually your job to carry out a discussion and consensus on the talk page before removing it. NOT after someone challenges the edit.-Reconsider the static (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppetry

case

You have been accused of

I am surprised! I just got back to find this unwarranted attack. I am relatively new to WP and don't know the mechanisms at the disposal of experienced users. My position is simple: if there is a contentious issue the content should be moved to the discussion page until people reach consensus. There was an ongoing discussion when I left in the morning. Unfortunately I do not devote all my time on WP. -7oceans (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote EdJohnston (administrator) who has addressed this at

WP:3RR#Exceptions

. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material)."

For a BLP, refer to WP:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism:Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

-- 7oceans (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it occur to you that your insistence may be disruptive. I am asking for offline discussion on a topic that has already been resolved before you joined in this fray. There are exceptions to WP:3RR. I am afraid that you may be violating policy regarding a BLP by reverting my edits and censuring me for "edit-warring" for removing controversial even though it is cited material.

To quote EdJohnston (administrator) who has addressed this for a BLP at User talk:EdJohnston#Re: Report at WP:AN3: "Check WP:3RR#Exceptions. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material)."

For a BLP, refer to WP:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism:Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

-- 7oceans (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]