User talk:GSherman

Just a few quick tips:

Our Tutorial explains how to edit; you can experiment in the test area.
We have help pages, and if they don't help (can happen :-), post a question at the Help Desk.
Remember that we strive to have unbiased articles.
Eventually, you might want to read our Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Use the "Preview" button below the edit box! It helps you catch layout, format, and spelling errors before saving.
To sign your messages (to talk pages, for instance—like I do below), add four tildes (~~~~) to your posts. The software will replace them by your signature and a time stamp when you save the page.

Anyway, have fun improving this encyclopedia! Lupo 08:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alleged U.S. war criminals

Please do not remove the VfD notice from that page. Argue on this page why it should not be deleted instead. If the community consensus turns out to keep the article, then the VfD note will be removed. Lupo 08:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

For future reference, you should be aware of the Three Revert Rule. -- Curps 08:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- Curps 08:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Attempts to unilaterally impose a particular point of view usually fail. -- Curps 09:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are attempting to insert your POV opinions, transparent disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding. -- Curps 09:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The three-revert rule applies to more than three reverts. I have done no more than three. -- Curps 09:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War crimes

I'd like to suggest that you reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia -- almost all of your edits will continue to be reverted, because they violate our policies, and you will quickly find yourself before the arbitration committee. Articles should report on significant criticisms made of an individual, and in several cases these obviously do include charges of war crimes. But such claims must be included in the proper context -- which is usually not the lead of the article -- and should report on the substance of the allegations, not merely the polemical labels used in making them. Instead of attempting to insert virtually identical text into dozens of articles, why don't you focus on one article which you think doesn't include enough coverage of the subject's critics, and expand it with accurate information presented from a neutral point of view? RadicalSubversiv E 11:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I should add that your edits will be far more likely to find acceptance if you engage in discussion on talk pages instead of just using up your three reverts. RadicalSubversiv E 11:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see that you have just made a personal attack against Curps. Please read and follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks, a policy which we as a community take very seriously, and refrain from making such comments in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 11:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)