Talk:Free Radio Santa Cruz

Issues with article

References to the FCC action against the station are both from left wing sources. No objectivity is presumed. The phrase "federal marshals armed with assault rifles" is a description used for dramatic effect. The link to the station's web site is sufficient. The assertion the station returned to broadcasting "with a strong showing of community support" is unsubstantiated. The article will be edited in view of these issues. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing sources based on your perceived POV is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just because you disagree with a view point, doesn't give you an excuse for removing content that is sourced. If you continue removing content based on your opinion of what should be right, I will report you to an administrator. Wikipedia has standards in place for this sort of thing.--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I explained my edits on the talk page like I was supposed to. Assume good faith and don't threaten me. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The station's website is not a good source. Wikipedia requires third-party sources for something to be notable. If it was just the station's website as a source, then I would question its notability. As I said, I suggest you read up on policies on Wikipedia and stop removing sources based on your political beliefs. That is not how things work here. By the way, I have edited on Wikipedia since 2006, just in case you question my judgement. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your self-promotion and ego neither impresses me nor is relevant. You are not the final arbiter of all that is here. Now take your ego and your threats and go elsewhere. I did a legitimate edit, I explained it on the discussion page. Go to an "admin" if you so choose. My edits and explanation stand on their own. Your lousy attitude and threats do as well. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing looks ok to me (see also the ANI thread). I have reverted 184.100.94.240's aggressive edits. 184.100.94.240 has already reverted twice and should be on notice of the 3-revert rule which can lead to a block on a 4th revert. The edit warring here is obvious enough to justify blocking on 3rd revert in my opinion. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of "Milonica", would you? Or are you one of his editing friends, or a member of his "alternative media" subculture? Or are you being aggressive because someone is calling this article and "Milonica" out on a clear POV violation? I thought - in the parlance of WP, I was to "be bold" in editing. Welcome to WP, it appears. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)