Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. [1] TableManners^C·U·T 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I reverted your revert due to concerns over reliablity of the source. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you disagree, you may revert me, and I also encourage you to explain your disagreement on the articles talk page. TableManners^C·U·T 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Hal Turner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would stop fighting over the Hal Turner article while I straighten things out. Edit warring is a blockable violation of policy, so please don't break the three-revert rule. You already have, but I won't block you as I'm presuming you didn't know about it; just don't violate it again. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; it is important to mention the matter, because having the second largest talk show in the world's most powerful nation be a mouthpiece for a neo-Nazi is quite a noteworthy subject. I've sourced the page and added some clarifying bits; if you have anything else to add, feel free to do so.

Oh, and in the future, should anyone revert you for a reason you can't see, don't revert back; instead, contact them. If you don't receive a response, contact me. This way it'll be easy to resolve the conflict. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did well in not reverting Asher, keep it up. Now, I can't technically mediate because I'm involved in the matter, which could make me biased. However, speaking as an editor, I'm going to see if I can dig up enough material to create a "controversy" section or something of the sort in the Hannity article. Also, it may be worth mentioning it on the show's article, too. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate the 3RR. My first edit was not a revert. Even if I had, you are inserting Original Research within a BLP issue, which is not a 3RR issue. 3RR covers content, not violation of WP Policies. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis of Material is a form of Original Research, and your accusations against me on the request for editor assistance are not a good way to deal with conflict. False allegations will not serve you well. As I have had my differences with Blaxthos in the past, I still acknowledge when I have made mistakes, as he has done with me. Arzel (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Regarding this request, I will offer what little advice I can. First off, Arzel did not violate WP:3RR, from what I can tell. I don't know if I buy his original research argument. I fail to see where there is any defamatory statements, so his WP:BLP assertion carries no weight. I am trying to wait and see what the rest of the community (of which you are a part) thinks. I advise that you make sure to avoid trolling or being disruptive. Also, I may not be the best person to ask for assistance. I have often stood up to Arzel's policy shopping, and I make no secret of my lack of good faith with regard to his arguments (ie I don't take his assertions as correct without verification). That being said, he's had valid points in the past, which I readily concede when I'm wrong. You should probably wait and see what consensus forms. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, biography of living people and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. / Arnabdas (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is your problem? Have you read the policies regarding WP:BLP? Your continued additional of personal analysis regarding Bill O'Reilly is in violation of policies regarding WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have been warned numerous times regarding this issues. Arzel (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any BLP and NPOV issues with your changes to the BOR article (at least today). I'd suggest that there may be other motivations for this notice, especially a differing point of view. Take it with a grain of salt -- the reputation of the two editors above doesn't lend much credibility to the warnings they sling. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that just by continuing to revert, you'll be able to enforce your will on other editors. In practice, it doesn't work out that way. If you are willing to engage in a discussion where you could be persuaded that the other side is right and you are wrong, then I suggest that rather than reverting, you move to the talk page and attempt that. If you are unwilling to do this, then you may want to reevaluate your interest in working on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Croctotheface (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, Your dislike of Bill O'Reilly and anything related to Bill O'Reilly is duly noted. However, WP is not the place for you to vet your personal opinions nor is it the place to promote your point of view. WP:BLP is very clear when dealing with these issues, articles must be presented in a neutral tone and not presented in a way which is to mock of denegrate the subject. Criticism is valid, however one must be careful to present criticism in a way that minority views are not given undue weight. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Politics of Bill O'Reilly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]