User talk:87.113.180.161

February 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

You have removed information, including sources, from Prestige (sociolinguistics), Language ideology, and Linguistic anthropology. Your edits follow a pattern of removing cited sources and then adding {{Who}} or {{Fact}} maintenance tags. The New York Times and academic publishers such as Routledge and Blackwell are presumed reliable, as is explained at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you believe that information cited to such publications is inaccurate or incomplete, you should cite other scholars with contrary analyses or criticism. Please stop removing citations of scholarship you disagree with. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My edits

In order to keep the conversation in one place, his section was copied here from User talk:Cnilep by Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

My edits were entirely in line with Wikipedia's policies. You have completely misrepresented my edits, the who and facts tags were added to areas which did not have sources, my edits to Language ideology removed an entire paragraph of original research, yes it included a single source, but the source did not support the paragraph, just one fact in it. I have not just removed things I disagreed with, I removed things which were not sourced or were original research. My edits to language ideology removed a paragraph which, while using sources, used them purely to advance an original synthesis which you should see if you recheck the part I removed. Not only that, but you falsely accuse me of not fully explaining my edits, when in every case I have done, you just haven't responded to my edits, instead making up false accusations. I am reinstating all of my edits, I have merely followed Wikipedia's own original research policy.--87.113.180.161 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have left edit summaries, and I apologize for the fact that my comments on you user page refer to edits "without giving a valid reason". I used a standard template, {{uw-delete2}}. The second paragraph, beginning "You have removed information," consists of my own comments. I do wish you would stop removing sources from articles, but I will not engage in an edit war. I have asked contributors to WikiProject Linguistics to review the three pages in question. Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your latest edits suggest an edit war, which can result in a user being blocked from editing. Any editor who reverts a single page three times in a 24-hour period will be blocked; this is called the three-revert rule. Editors can also be blocked for fewer than three reverts, though. I would suggest that we both refrain for now from editing any of the three pages we have discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Missouri State Marshal Renaming Proposal

Per your February, 2014 comments on the article's Talk page, I have formally proposed that the Missouri State Marshal (part of Judicial Branch) article should be renamed.--TommyBoy (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

---