User talk:Sliceofmiami

Hello, Sliceofmiami, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your edits

You have been reverted multiple times on United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort, yet I fail to see where you have attempted to discuss your edits with anyone on the article's talk page. I highly suggest that you do not edit the article again until you have discussed the edits per the WP:BRD policy. Your edit warring is bringing you very close to a block, and your behavior highly suggests that you are a single-purpose account. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mea maxima culpa. I didn't understand the process. It is my first time on Wiki. I added information that I believed was relevant, the first time without references, and the second time with someone that didn't like what I wrote. I am now using the discussion page. You jump to conclusions too fast. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, interesting Latin phrase. I hadn't heard that one before. Thanks for discussing your edits; it's greatly appreciated and saves many people from frustration. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in KC-X, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. username 1 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1984

Those comments refer to 1984 not being an official title for the book, which no one disputes. When I reverted your removal, I also reworded to clarify the lack of official status. I'm not seeing the problem. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring

Sorry I took so long to respond to your comment. I've been busy and haven't been on for a while.

That's really unfortunate. You see that all the time on wikipedia. Sometimes I feel like I'm building sandcastles. I put up some truth with a reliable source and some dishonest person comes along and a cover-up is only a click away. But that's the thing about wikipedia. It never forgets. You can always go back and see exactly what was done.

Could you refresh my memory about the article to which you are referring? It seems like it was about a guy from Microsoft calling for internet users to be licensed before being allowed to use the internet. That should be a crime.

This is not official; it's just the way I know how to do it.

1)Click on the history tab. 2)Click the radio button next to the edit that you want to revert. 3)Click the radio button under that one. 4)Click the "compare selected revisions" button. 5)Figure out what is going on. 6)Click "undo" next to the edit you want to undo.

On second thought, I am not the right person to ask about this.

Hope this helps.

--Victoria h (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Sources

Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Chuck_Smith_(pastor) have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The sources in question had been previously discussed with you as not wikipedia-worthy.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!

Note that unsourced or poorly sourced information may be removed immediately and that the burden is not on the remover of the information to find better sources. If you are interested in adding new information to an article, directing others to find references for your material is inappropriate.

Thanks for your time and efforts! 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the user in Jacksonville that only wishes to be identified by an IP address, please read Wikipedia:V before you make your next revert of anyone's pages. In specific,

Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might object, but it's happened to me as well. As it is written above and in WP policies, "unsourced or poorly sourced information may be removed immediately and that the burden is not on the remover of the information to find better sources". You can always undo the deletion and provide WP:V references. BTW, when you change the date on a template as you did on Calvary Chapel it doesn't make it any more or less POV. Not sure why you do that. Still don't understand your CC vendetta. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Incivility, however clever, is not acceptable. There's no need to stalk me. That's the sort of behaviour that cult members do to intimidate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

writing

How is the novel going Slice? :) --Victoria h (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior

Hi Sliceofmiami. I am saying here what I have also said at Talk:Calvary Chapel. Your record on that page of relentlessly negative comments about the article subject (often with no practical suggestions included), advancing of sources whose quality is highly questionable but that put the article subject in a bad light, rejection of sources that are perfectly adequate to support the statements they are cited to support (but which are not negative towards the article subject), and mis-interpretation of sources to put the article subject in a bad light, among other things, add up to something very similar to tendentiousness. More seriously, your name-calling and other borderline-uncivil behavior towards those who reject your suggestions are unacceptable.

I ask that you reconsider and cease your disruptive behavior, and particularly that you strike your personal insults (something I know you know how to do). Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am watching this page for now, so please reply here.

Thanks so much for your valiant concern, Blue. As you know, I responded on your Talk page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Calvary Chapel

Sliceofmiami, it is clear to me that your edits at Calvary Chapel (esp. the persistent reinstatement of various cn and POV tags) constitute edit-warring. While you are not guilty of WP:3R, such guilt is not necessary for a charge of edit-warring; that you persist against consensus is enough, and consensus is clear from the talk page and from the fact that three different editors have reverted your tagging. I do not wish to slap a template on your talk page, but please consider this a warning; barring a new consensus among editors, future reinstatement of such tags is grounds for any editor to seek a temporary block to forestall this ongoing disruption. I hope it won't get that far. Consider also WP:RFC is a valid option, since enough attempts have been made on your talk page to engage you in constructive discussion, and an RfC can end in, for instance, a topic ban. I hope it won't go that far either. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Chapel

I've been on vacation myself. I do think the article could use more balance and I plan to add a few things when I get a chance. I'm trying to approach things as professionally as possible. If you think there's distortion and POV in the article, I would urge you to stick around — you've got just as much right as anyone else to edit the article. Mojoworker (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sliceofmiami, as I have repeatedly tried to say, the substance of your views has never been a problem. Rather, the problem has been your lack of civility. I'm sorry to say that I see problems here again, particularly your link to the gang article and your reference to "militant followers". You will indeed have problems if you continue to focus on editors rather than on article content.

That said, I want to say again that civil good-faith contributions are most welcome, even (for purposes of balance, I would even say "particularly") those from a viewpoint critical of the article subject. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you are following me, BlueMoonlet. I responded on your talk page with great information about "the gang". You could have googled it yourself, but I remember you wrote that you don't really wish to review questionable material about your group. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to see it, as I never deactivated watching this page after our previous exchange here. Have replied at the place where you left your comment. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]