:{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left]] }}}This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:User:Mhking|, as you did to [[:User:Mhking]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{{2|}}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left]] }}}This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:User:Mhking|, as you did to [[:User:Mhking]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{{2|}}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::* Are you day dreaming? Based on what did you think it's me who blanked your user page? --[[User:Dongdongdog|Dongdongdog]] 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::I explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate [[WP:POINT]]. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::I explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate [[WP:POINT]]. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate WP:POINT. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --Mhking23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate WP:POINT. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --Dongdongdog23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to your version, but only to prevent my violation of WP:3RR (which you are currently in violation of). Please refrain from falling into edit wars. A violation of WP:3RR can result in a prohibition from editing on Wikipedia. Also, your actions make it hard to assume good faith. You obviously are not aware of the rules and guidelines on Wikipedia. This is not a soapbox, and no matter your belief in the supposed wrongdoing of the Chicago Sun-Times and Michael Sneed, in the larger scope of things, her report is immaterial, and is non-encyclopedic. You are so married to her denouncement and that of journalists in general that you would disrupt the environment here to make your point (hence your violation of WP:POINT). As I have said previously, should the AfD indicate that this issue is warranted, then I will happily leave it alone (however, the continued impositions of personal and biased points of view will still be enthusiastically removed). But as I said, I am operating within the guidelines of WP here and am not trying to bash anyone, least of all you. --Mhking23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation on my side at all. From the history of the article, people can see what I did was to change the section title to "Controversy". And this all. And it's you that have kept rolling it back to "Erroneous Reporting of the Virginia Tech Massacre". From the history, people can also see the whole section has nothing to do with my personal belief at all as my edit was erased totally by your rolling back to an earlier version. Please note Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No matter how you believe the controversy should be eliminated totally from Wikipedia (hence your violation of WP:POINT). You persistence of censoring others's views will be brought to the arbitration board soon. --Dongdongdog23:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
