Napkin65
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 edit
The recent edit you made to Socialist movement in the United States constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I gave plenty of examples on the talk page and even a source that overrides the old one. Yet this is vandalism because some random socialist disagrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- You removed a large section of sourced text without as much as an edit summary, so yes, that is being reverted as vandalism. Besides, this is a content dispute - until there is some form of consensus on the talk page the challenged sections should remain unaltered. So far the talk page seems to be against your removal. I would point you to WP:DR to discuss this issue if you cannot find consensus on the talk page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
there were two people debating the issue. How exactly do you gain consensus without unanimity? The entire section is based on the same 10 page range of Howard Zinn's book. Howard Zinn being a rather unreliable socialist supporter himself. I on the other hand, cited a Supreme Court case that proves Zinn to be absolutely false about right violations. Afterall its up to the Supreme Court to decide the perameters of one's rights, NOT Howard Zinn. Look at all the traces of POV and unverifiable and unsubstantiated statements. I would like to officially dispute the whole section. Its not vandalism if its false.--Napkin65 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)