Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Tom 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reinserting the passage about Keith Olbermann's criticisms of Goldberg until we have had a chance to work this out on the talk page. Personally, I think it is almost in acceptable form, but still needs anti-biasing work - if we spend a little time on it now, there will be less chance of someone else removing it later. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed Wiki standards throughout and more than tried to be fair. You, on the other hand, persist in deleting my edits THEN asking that we discuss them? A bit bassackwards, wouldn't you say? I think it's abundantly clear that you misunderstand WP:NPOV. Please read or re-read it. Olbermann is simply responding to the attacks made in Goldberg's book. How you can possibly expect to maintain some "bias" standard, when the very book mentioned in the article is a "biased" tome on the very subject of BIAS simply stretches credulity. Mark, let's be honest. I've read over many of your contributions. You're clearly a conservative/Republican bent on editing Wiki pages to conform to your own far right-wing bias. But this really isn't the forum for that Mark, and if you'd ever actually realize that, perhaps you'd stop getting 3RR warnings.

I would have happily worked with you on the article if there was a good faith/non-partisan effort on your part to do so. But you simply don't bring that to the table. And like you, Tom also seems to think that his wholesale and unilateral deletes resolve the problem. Like you perhaps, Tom needs to get a blog.

But I'm done. I've asked the admins to intercede. I'll trust their judgment, which I expect will be finally devoid of politically partisan gamesmanship. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mark Shaw (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]