User talk:Rescarpment

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop

The good news is that the 150 number backed by the LA Times looks good. But much of the rest of your edits at ATF gunwalking scandal are inappropriate and disruptive. They violate WP:V, WP:RS, and others, and you now appear to be violating WP:3RR. If you haven't earned a block already, you are probably close.

• 1. The ATF as an organization is alleging nothing. There are sources from within the ATF giving info to Fortune, which is analyzing it.

Its primarily one single source neck deep in shit from the congressional investigation and is self serving.

• 2. Opinion pieces from the Washington Times, which is in itself a questionable source, are blatantly inappropriate sources.

How so? Opinion pieces seem to be widley used in the article.

• 3. You are re-adding grammatical mistakes for some reason.

Feel free to fix them.

• 4. There is already information about what Holder knew and when he knew it, so to speak, so you are duplicating information.

Just correcting it, thats all.

• 5. The story about the NRA says nothing about it contributing to a "bipartisan coalition," so you are misusing the citation. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It also says nothing about the vote being scored, so you appear to be misusing the citation as well.