User talk:Anhedonic

June 2009
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Minkus (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLPN
I've fixed your recent addition to BLPN. The problem was that you pasted it twice, and you misused the user template. You wrote, which is replaced by the content of the page. What I think you were after was which just gives a few user links. However, I really think you need to refactor your complaint. Make it a lot shorter and simply describe the problem, and point people to the talk page or use diffs to give evidence rather than lengthy quotes. People will probably ignore such a long complaint. I just spent time fixing it, and I'm not even going to read it. Verbal  chat  09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop your continuing reverting of the BLPN page. If you want help with something please let me know here. If you continue, your edits may be viewed as disruptive and you may be blocked (and your IP addresses). Verbal   chat  10:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning
Please stop edit warring on Keith Olbermann. I'm assuming you are also 74.222.210.4 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS), who made the same edits earlier today. Counting those, you've reverted five times, while wikipedia's three-revert-rule prohibits this. Please stop edit warring on the article, and continue your discussion on the talk page. As per WP:3RR, further edit warring may result in a block. Dayewalker (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone keeps reverting my changes. I am simply trying to enforce the high standard maintained in Biographies of Living individuals.


 * If you read the discussion page you will see my edits are undeniably appropriate and those reversing them, are purposely being misleading : Their characterizations are used to benefit Olbermann by saying that him attacking O'Reilly every day qualifies as a feud. But admittedly all parties have agreed that O'Reilly has never once criticized Olbermann, and the only time he ever even acknowledged his existence was when a caller mentioned him.


 * I am astonished that they maintain the lie that the two are involved in a "feud" and are "rivals" (rivals maybe because they are in the same field, going for the same ratings. But actually that would only make them peers.)


 * Clearly since O'Reilly has never discussed Olbermann at all, he is not involved in a feud; and therefor neither is Olbermann.


 * I created this account to see if Wikipedia really is biased; I figured that once I showed that their was an undeniable flaw in the article which unfairly characterized one individual and unfairly benefitted the other, that certainly my edit would be accepted.


 * Instead it is clear that the truth doesn't matter if it doesn't benefit the opinions and biases of certain contributors.


 * Also what astonished me more is their justification for ignoring fact: they cited an article that also called the two parties relationship a feud. Of course it gave no evidence that O'Reilly had ever even uttered Olbermann's name.


 * They say that since they cited articles that the definition of the word feud no longer matters. Anyone use this justification for contributions to purport any lie they want.


 * There are articles written by individuals who call Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and Stalin Heroes and CHampions of Justice. Clearly these men contradict the definition of 'hero' and 'champion of justice'. But even if you argued that point clearly, it wouldn't matter because I cited external documents that said this.


 * So using citations overrides truth and the actual definition of terms. I can find an article that says O'Reilly and Olbermann are unbiased sources of information. But since they are not, using a citation shouldn't allow me to flagrantly lie.


 * What if I cite a article that Obama and Ayers are rivals. Even though there is no proof of such a thing in the article, it apparently is enough to contradict someone who discredits the concept that Obama and Ayers are rivals, because there is no rivalry between them.


 * The above is my exact situation. If I attempt to characterize living people in the same way they Characterize Olbermann and O'Reilly, I expect that even though the article I cite gives no proof for what It claims, that my post is valid because I used a citation.


 * I hope someone out there will admit that this just makes sense. I am very depressed at the mentality of most wikipedia contributors.


 * Also I write for the University of Kansas Newspaper, the The University Daily Kansan. I am considering submiting an article in regards to this libelous behavior.


 * Please if you can show me that you either admit that I am simply making sense, or can provide evidence that I am wrong and O'Reilly has argued/fought over a period of time with Olbermann (As feud is defined by wikipedia).


 * As it stands the alleged feud is unverified, and completly synthetic. Worse though it is used to support the political/personal opinions of certain contributors.


 * Please show me that the wikipedia community does not tolerate such abuses of the truth.
 * Anhedonic (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (CST)


 * If you'd like to discuss the edits, the place for that is the Talk:Keith Olbermann page. It sounds like you want someone to debate you on wikipedia and your idea of what the truth is, and how you view the definitions of a term as more accurate than reliable sources. Sorry, I have no desire to do that. Good luck with your article. Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Truth is an abstract concept which does not have a place in wikipedia in general. In conjunction, neither is what you can prove.  Highly contentious articles are controled by reliable resources, regardless of what is true or what you can prove.  Even if it is true that O'Reilly and Olbermann are not in fact fueding, if reliable sources present a point of view that they are feuding then you will have little luck in trying to present a different point of view.  My suggestion to you is to work within these confines.  Not only will your results be more positive, but it will be less stressful.  Arzel (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Truth is an abstract concept which does not have a place in wikipedia in general"


 * Priceless. This quote will make the best article on Wikipedia bias ever written. This is truly awesome, so If any author ever writes a lie, and no one addresses the lie. Wikipedia will gladly use it as fact. Truly you are awful for presenting lies to the public. You disgust me, and you will disgust and shock our readers. (Note: I will of course not use usernames in my article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs)


 * Arzel is 100% correct. I strongly suggest you slow your roll, as additional personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, or wanton disregard of policy will result in a block.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)