User talk:68.219.142.97

February 2010 - FDIC

Please stop making the same repeated edit, giving the same reasons. Your statutory interpretation is not only questionable, it's original research and not suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia page. If you are of the view that FDIC deposits are, by law, backed by the full faith & credit of the US Treasury (versus the more defensible point of view that, law or no law, there is no way that Congress would let FDIC default on its insurance obligations), find a reliable and verifiable third party source to that effect, and cite to it. You're on the verge of an edit war and will violate the 3R rule if you introduce the same edit again. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Your recent editing history at Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this dispute here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit_war_at_Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation. JohnInDC (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to 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) 05:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

FDIC Talk page

I'd add that it is considered poor form to edit your Talk page comments after other editors have read them and responded to them. So while I appreciate your deleting some of your snarkier commentary, it would have been better simply to apologize for it and leave the comments in place (or at least add a placeholder showing where they once were). They were tart, to be sure, but not libelous. See this link : Wikipedia:REDACT#Own_comments JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I believe I clearly apologized for any offense you may have mistakenly taken and I refuse to engage in a technical battle with you. You obviously know the rules of Wikipedia better than I do (didn't I already concede that?). What you think of my comments are just your opinion. I believe my commentary is sourced, factual, frank and blunt. My own opinion on the matter is that an ego might have been hurt after I successfully rebutted opinion with sourced fact (hence the need to "technically" retaliate against me with additional friviolous argument -- hey but that's just my opinion).

If you would be so kind as to forward this onto "dispute resolution" then that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you 68.219.142.97 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

---