User talk:81.100.215.14

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Will Beback talk 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it was my intention and I did specify a reason in the edit summary.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Birch Society. 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. TFD (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You revert my edit and then accuse me of engaging in an "edit-war"? I have made every effort to justify my edit, so go ahead and try blocking me. I'll make an official complaint about your behaviour. You're not going to bully me. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make major changes to an article without consensus. This intro has been extensively discussed among editors. Will Beback talk 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is't a "major" change to remove one phrase that has defamatory intent. I read through the discussion page. It seemed to me that the paragraph describing it as "far-right" and other terms was adequate for the argument being made by people who wanted to keep the term, even if it is a factually inaccurate term.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.