User talk:Arzel/Archive 1

New beginnings, please discuss new items here. Arzel 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy
It might surprise you to know I'm completely uninterested in self-serving opinion founded on total ignorance. The U.S. was founded as a liberal democracy. This is a far-reaching term. Referring to the country as a Democratic Republic does not in any way change the FACT that it was founded as a liberal democracy, except in the minds (such as they are) of the neocon filth of the world. You might want to learn a little about the enlightenment which birthed the founders and shaped their views before you presume to expound on their views as though you know what you are talking about. Jeepers, I know this is really "out there" as a suggestion, but you might have even looked up the term which you are so clearly unfamiliar with on this very site. You would have noticed right at the very beginning of the article the mention of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.102.87 (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Help
see: Talk:Those_Who_Trespass68.52.147.84 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HaeB reverted your changes again...68.52.147.84 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HaeB reverted it yet again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.147.84 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Formatting references
Before continuing to add additional formatting to the reference sections of articles, please take a look at the usage instructions for scroll box and the deletion discussion for scrollref, found within Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11. Formatting the reference section in such a way breaks the page formatting for many users, and thus shouldn't be done within article space. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I wasn't aware it caused problems or was up for deletion. I just thought it was a nice way to make pages with huge reference lists more readable.  Arzel 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the biggest problems it causes is that the references are hidden when an article is printed. It's not so much an issue when actually viewing the article, but still an issue that needs to be worked out. It also creates an accessibility issue for some, and adds an additional unwanted scrollbar for unknown reasons. It makes reading the references nearly impossible. I know was trying to figure out a work around, as well as a couple others, but I don't think anyone has found a fix. -  auburn pilot   talk  21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel
Regarding your edit here, please do not use the edit summaries to attack other users. I realize that this is a contentious issue, but please try to remain calm and civil. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take out my contribution to the page? You left the comment "no youtube" and that was it... who are you to decide this? Is there a rule about linking to certain websites that I am unfamiliar with? The link is permanent and it was a video clip posted by the source (Greenwald)... I fail to see how a person is supposed to reference something said in a video without linking to the video itself... User:FloridaJarrett —Preceding comment was added at 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that Bill O'Reilly said that Fox News is Right Wing, there is even a source on his website that I cited. Nice try, but I'm putting up the legitimate information again. 74.74.229.245 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Essay
I'm trying my hand at essay writing. I've completed a very first rough draft and would like your input on whether it is a worthy topic, things that should be added etc. It's located in my workspace. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re.Bill O' Rielly
THAT is NOT "vandalisim" at all. I WATCH THAT SHOW. 205.240.146.131 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill repeats that there ARE people in those states who do NOT want "Jessica's Law" passed on his show. 205.240.146.131 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what he says, you can't insert it into the article as personally commentary, which is what you did. Arzel 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule, which is a blockable offense. Plesae consider this a warning. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No I have not, you inserted Original Research in violation of a BLP. Even so, my first edit was not a revert.  Arzel (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not inserted original research. If you had bothered to read the citation before you reverted, you would have seen that the citation was a transcript. My edit directly referenced the transcript.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did read before I removed, I have responded on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken
I take no offense at your comments (WP:AGF). I am a computer science major and a communications officer. I am quite aware of the capabilities of even the most basic of PCs today, much less a well-designed system or better... The problem is the lack of properly made software designed for this purpose. There isn't much money in it (let's face it, you sell it once and you're done) and there is little incentive to innovate much. A lot of Aggies are in computer graphics and simulations (over half of the special effects wizards at Industrial Light and Magic and Dreamworks are Aggies; a little trivia for you. If you look closely at the newest Star Wars movies, you will find there are lots of little aTm logos all around, but you have to know where to look. The Toy Story movies are the same way. I think the problem is more in phrasing and I think we can find a reasonable compromise. Look forwad to talking to you. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
Suggest you visit the POV discussion over at Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. ThreeE 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You've received countless warnings in the past. This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. /Blaxthos 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reported this action to WP:ANI. Arzel 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears they resolved it properly. Hopefully the fact that they agreed with and explicitly justified the warning will give you pause before continuing your pattern of personal attacks.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty.
I've attempted to remove some of the more blatant POV statements. The rest I won't remove, as it does add a bit to the article. You should discuss any other concern you may have with Reaverdrop, or someone else who is active on the page. If they don't reply on the article's talk page, ask them on their user talk pages. · AndonicO Talk 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note Re: Edit Summary
Please don't take this the wrong way. I come bearing the fruits of good faith. Please allow me this small word of advice: try to only use "rvv" in the edit summary when it is blatant vandalism. Many editors take "claim" out of articles on the grounds that is a word to avoid. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Opps, didn't even realize I put two v's on my note, but your advise is well taken. Thanks. Arzel 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Made me laugh!
This edit summary made me smile. Keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, a little levity is nice thing. Arzel 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper television formatting
Hello...you recently undid my edit to the John Gibson article: on grounds that it was not properly referenced. Perhaps I misunderstand the policy, but the citation is included...the 5/31/07 broadcast of his television show. Is it a question of verifying? Jakerforever 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On the May 31, 2007 broadcast of The Big Story, Gibson, commenting on the tuberculosis infection of Andrew Speaker, remarked, "It seems every time a story pops up about somebody who has suddenly contracted some strange or incurable disease, it's somebody who is either from the third world, or was traveling through some godforsaken hellhole, and somehow managed to contract ooga booga fever."


 * You included this in the criticisms section, however there is no reference to which would indicate that he was criticized for this statement. I was not questioning whether it was a valid statement, it may very well be, but I am questioning whether it is something of note that others have criticized.  By including statements like that, without any context, it looks like an attack on the person, something which must be avoided within WP:BLP articles.  Arzel 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...I just googled "ooga booga fever" and just looking at the first page of results is all reaction to the incident. The first result is a link to the media watchdog group Media Matters' website write-up of the incident.  Media Matters seems to be used as a regular citation of the other criticims...would putting the link as a reference be sufficient?  (actually, there's already a precident, unless those are wrong, too...)  Thanks so much, I've taken a long wiki-break and forgot lots of protocol...  Jakerforever 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich
I see your point. Self-reverted. Thanks for the note. /Blaxthos 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Just as an FYI, I've started a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR regarding recent editing of the Mitt Romney article. Notifying Qworty as well. Mbisanz (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel - your edits on Mitt Romney, while technically under 3RR, were clearly edit warring. Though I agree with you that BLP and NPOV concerns are present, there was insufficient effort made to resolve this on talk pages (article and user) compared to editing the article back and forth.

In the future, please remember that WP:3RR is a hard limit, not an entitlement to edit that much. It is always better to talk on talk pages and resolve disputes that way than to edit war article contents back and forth until someone or everyone are 3RR violators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
You're coming awful close to violating WP:3RR, and there are clearly many editors who have reverted your scrubbing of sourced material (which invalidates your claim that there is consensus to remove). You've been around long enough to know better, and I suggest you stop post haste. You may find my reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would note that you didn't even read the section. If you had you would have at least removed the signiture on the article page.  Arzel (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for supporting information
Hello Arzel and Happy Holidays. Just to clear up any potential confusion, I am the one who wrote the O'Reilly Malmedy section. I had a user account set up but I forgot to sign in when I posted that section. In your user profile it states that you feel too much attention is paid to small controversies which is certainly in agreement with our dealings. My own view is that I will go to Encarta if I want concise information. My favorite aspect of Wikipedia is it's comprehensiveness. People can judge the headings and decide if they'd like to read the sections for themselves. You have made a few assertions which have prompted requests for validation. You alluded earlier to the fact that you are pretty busy as of late so I am not sure if you have missed the requests or haven't had time to respond to them. In any case, I'd like to repeat the requests for support of your claims:

1.) You have stated that general consensus exists that my section shouldn't be included but I still haven't found the discussion that concluded with this consensus. Could you please clarify this and send me a link to the relevant discussion?

2.) You also mentioned that O'Reilly has acknowledged and corrected the gaffe for which the section was written about. Again, I have found no evidence of this. If your claim is accurate, could you please provide me with a citation and reference to your source?

As for the section, I have understandably been busy for the last few days but my inactivity should not be confused with capitulation. I still feel strongly that the section is warranted and I will press this issue until I agree with your assertion that general cosensus rejects the section. I do however agree that care needs to be taken regarding the BLP issue and out of respect for concerned editors like yourself, I will post a draft proposal on the discussion page when I get a chance that attempts to address some of the concerns raised by yourself and others before adding it to the article. --Benevolence one (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich
I disagree with you; please see the lengthy discussion at Talk:Elizabeth_Kucinich. TJRC (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arzel, you're just rehashing arguments already made. See the talk page referenced above.  I won't participate in this one-on-one discussion on our talk pages further.  The article talk page is the correct place for it.--TJRC (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you deleted my response to you on your page I'll repeat it hear. Why don't you discuss on the talk page then?  You didn't respond to my comments, you just reverted my changes without comment...nice.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hey man
I notice that you've ran afoul of Admins who stringently enforce the edit policy only as it applies to their viewpoints. Don't worry, I was recently blocked for asking for cites to show me that my position was incorrect. Ironically LooneyMonkey was involved in that dispute as well and I see he is involved in the Media Matters for America dispute as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that in BOTH situations he is taking up a position on the left. In your case I notice two other editors who are threatening you with censorship. You also need to be on the lookout for a Gamaliel, I had someone write on my page that he was a rabid censor. However, I will let you know there are some good editors out there, specifically one "Knulclunk" who approached the situation with an open mind and compromised. Good luck now that LooneyMonkey has gotten involved, you might as well hang up your argument and goose step in line.Chairman Meow (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, never mind about Gamaliel..I was reading through your talk page and I noticed he was there. I really don't think it's a coincidence AT ALL that 2 of the 3 admins who were against me are also against you and it involves a leftist position. I've been with wikipedia for three years and I swear that I've seen a jump up in Left POV of people who are admins. It' saddening because it used to be such a good place.Chairman Meow (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR warning
Regarding this accusation, please read WP:3RR, which states that more than three times is against policy. I again caution you to actually read (and understand) policies before hurling accusations, as more often than not you end up looking foolish. Also, I will take this removal as acknowledgement of the request that you ask before removing content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have not violated it, but you are treading on it. As I have stated before, there is no need to ask to remove material that is in violation of wp policy, I didn't realize all changes needed your approval.  Arzel (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not my approval, Arzel... but they need the community's consensus. Please respect WP:CONSENSUS and ask before making changes like that.  Thanks for striking the warning.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kieth Olbermann
Arzel, as has been explained to you in the past, you can't just remove Keith Olbermann's criticism from articles because you think his "opinion is irrelevant". By now you should know better, and if you continue I think there is ample evidence to show that you're trying to be disruptive. Please refrain from making edits like this. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not Olbermann's opinion of O'Reilly. He simply regurgitated the opinion of MM, there is no reason to stack his biased comments on top of them. If you want an article about Oblermann on O'Reilly maybe you should create one. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is a article on criticism of O'Reilly, and Olbermann is criticizing O'Reilly. You seem to have ignored that fact. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NewsMax Media‎
I enjoyed your Holy OR Batman comment to your deletion. Thanks for removing all of the speculation, pro and con. David Traver (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and hello to a fellow UW Allumni. Arzel (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential eligibility
Please do not delete definitions of "natural born citizen". If you looked at the references you would see that 1) you are deleting a reliable source - just because you don't agree with it does not make it unreliable and 2) that US law is based on the writings of Sir William Blackstone in the mid 1700s which is why that reference is so important. "The Commentaries are often quoted as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of Common Law by US courts; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution)." What I was unable to find, however and would like help finding, is references to other meanings of "natural born citizen". If you could find any I would appreciate it. In the meantime I would ask you to put back the ones that you removed from John McCain presidential eligibility. I strongly suspect that you are only removing them "because you don't like what they say". The purpose of the article is not to "say what you want it to say" but to include all sides of the issue. Since you seem to think that McCain is a natural born citizen, please find a reference for a definition of natural born citizen that would include him. I wasn't able to find any. But first put back the only two definitions that we do have. 2ndAmendment (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem you are dealing with. The first reference  is not a reliable source.  It is an opinion piece and the opinion of the author is that McCain is not elligible to be president because he was not born in the US, and the author defines natural born to prove that McCain is not elligible to be president.  The second reference may very well be used by the SC, but it is meaningless without the first part, and it makes little sense to include a section which clearly states it is based off England into a section on the president of the United States.  You are introducing WP:OR and within WP:SYNTH by using the first section to define the issue and the second to prove your point.  One must be very careful when writing articles to not try and prove what you are trying to say.  WP is an encyclopedia, not a research paper.  It is fine to present the issues at hand, such that there are questions regarding McCain's elligibility.  However, when you start to present material which presents evidence that he is not as factual, you have passed the line from encyclopedia to original research.  Arzel (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So sorry to disappoint you but all I was doing was looking for a definition of natural born. I did a Google search for "definition of natural born" and a blog entry at The Volokh Conspiracy lead me to Blackstone. You may have a point to prove, but I certainly do not. The story about McCain's eligibility is a news story, not an opinion. I also got that one from a blog, and quoted the source, instead of using the blog. 2ndAmendment (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disappoint, not sure what you are implying. Regardless, the source you are using is not a reliable source, you CANNOT use it, end of story.  Arzel (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What? The supreme court uses it and you say I can't use it? What are you talking about? Obviously I'm not the only editor who thinks it should stay. 2ndAmendment (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret what I said. You can't use THIS as a reliable source  The extension of using Blackstone is Original Research.  You are using the first reference to define a natural born, and then use the second source to show that be this source McCain is not a natural born citizen.  This is synthesis of material, which is a form of original research.  Please read up on WP:RS and WP:OR], you might also want to read [[WP:BLP as well.  Arzel (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are calling "THIS" is a news story, not an opinion piece. I did not place the two definitions in any particular order in the article, and did not use one to support the other. They are simply the only two separate definitions which I was able to find for "natural born citizen". There is no connection between them, and no synthesis and the only original research that was done was to use Google to look for definitions. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't think I can't see what you are tring to do. You obviously have a very good grasp of constitutional law, and probably a better historical understanding than most people here.  However, the presise manner in which you added those two sentences did not happen just by chance.
 * Your first sentence (which is from an unreliable source) is where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status states that the natural act of being born determines their natural born status. This by itself doesn't add much, it only serves to define McCain as being naturally born in Panama.
 * The second sentence. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England. This by itself doesn't imply much either, at least not until the determination of Panama is made.  Since Panama was not a dominion of the US it would serve to say that under English law, from which US laws are based, McCain would not be declared to be a Natural-born subject.
 * However, when you put them together the meaning is clear. McCain would be inelligble to be president because he was born outside the US and he was not born within a territory or dominion of the US as defined by the framers of the constitution.  This is the basis of original research.  That said the first source is not a WP:RS so it is not usable anyway.  The second source, is rather meaningless by itself.  Unless someone has good knowledge of how the constitution was framed it doesn't make sense to include what England determined a natural-born subject to be.  The average reader would say "why is England as an example when this is the US?"  You would then have to include a great deal of more information to explain the link, with the obvious conclusion being original research trying to make the case that McCain is inelligible to be president.  Arzel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better now? I put them into chronological order, and added the explanation that you requested. The explanation was always there, but you had to click on the link to see it before. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You still included an unreliable source. Arzel (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are not the only two news organizations in the world. I did some searching on the American Voice Radio, and apparently it mostly covers political and Christian topics, and "is remnant and patriot in worldview with a pronounced distrust of government". It is not too surprising that it is quoted on the Ron Paul blogs. Read the next to last paragraph which states "The position stated in this article". Notice the words "this article", and not "this editorial"? 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are trying to allude to, but Americanchos is not a reliable source, end of story. Not even quite sure how you came about that site, my google searchNatural Born Citizen  or Natural Born Citizen definition doesn't bring it up, at least not that I could find quickly.  Arzel (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, it is American chaos that you are referring to. Well that is easily fixed. Hint: add the word "definition" to your search. 2ndAmendment (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John McCain presidential eligibility
An editor has nominated John McCain presidential eligibility, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing
Hi Arzel. I wanted to get your opinion on what to do with user Jimintheatl. He has constantly engaged in POV pushing and I fear that formal discipline is required. I gave him a warning on his talk page and he gave me one in retalliation. We have to stop POV pushing by him because it is obvious he is not interested in having good faith discussions and is going against consensus. Arnabdas (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming Close to the Line
''It would appear to me, that the longstanding views by some editors that FNC is biased have completely clouded there ability to view this in an objective fashion. Their belief that FNC is biased is so strong that to conclude anthing else must be the result of flawed studies or agenda by those editors wishing to add this information.''

Hey Arzel, I just wanted to point out that the above paragraph can very likely be taken out of context and be used in a way you did not intend. I understand the point you are trying to make that some editors could use some flexibility in viewing the issue, but the text comes across as essentially a PA against those that disagree with you-- that they are blind to logic and reason solely because of the political views or agenda. Now you may feel that way but I don't think that is what you are trying to get across. If this were to go ANI or something you risk a PA block. You may want to further explain your thoughts. I know we have had our differences in the past, but I am really trying to look out for you here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems another editor has already addressed this in part. I know tensions are running high, and I don't think this needs to go anywhere else.  Frustration often leads to regrettable actions in the heat of the moment.  However, I do want to point out that the entire premise of the post is that our judgment must be clouded by an ulterior agenda.  It's entirely possible (probable?) that the evidence presented really does not hold up to scrutiny.  In this case, instead of addressing the issues I've raised you regressed to an ad hominem logical fallacy.  If you have read the study and understand the premise behind it, please discuss why you believe the flaws I believe exist are not a concern.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Lead
Hi Arzel. You seem to be more experienced at this then me. I am curious why I am seemingly the only editor willing to change the lead in the FNC entry. I would think other editors would be doing the same, considering how many agreed in the RfC that the current version needs changing. The fact that Blaxthos, Gamaliel, and TheNobleSith seem to take turns reverting my edits week by week makes it seem that the majority of editors want to keep the lead alone, and that I am the only one who wants it changed. Yet the RfC showed most actually do want it changed. Am I missing something? Jsn9333 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are running up against a wall which may have to door. You will probably make little headway with Blaxthos, given your previous history he probably will disregard everything and anything you say.  The fact that it has finally been acknowledged that the UCLA study does not provide evidence that FNC is biased, and if anything, shows FNC is the most centrist is a huge step (one to which I have been fighting for over a year.)  It does seem that most want some sort of change, what can be done is to start presenting changes or options of changes within the talk that people can vote on and make suggestions.  Once a concensus is reached within the talk will we be able to make any changes to the lead.  Unfortunately I will be offline for the next two weeks and unable to participate, but you have my vote on your most recent suggestions.  Arzel (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance
Regarding your comment that another editor that someone "requested an editor assistance against me", I hope you're not referred to the Editor assistance process. If so, please note that editors who offer to help, at that page, are not offering to be advocates, but are rather to provide another opinion about what is happening with a dispute between editors.

If you do in fact have information that those involved in the WP:EA process see themselves as advocates, please let me know - that's not supposed to be happening. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Devean George Photograph
I would like to contribute a live shot of Devean George to which I own full exclusive rights from my collection. Please e-mail me to let me know if you're interested...PhotographSource PhotographSource (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies
Please join me at the talk page and explain what exactly you meant in your edit summary. There is no reliability issue and the Daily Show is a very notable political satire show. Would you agree that at least a mention should be there, if perhaps a much shorter one? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
You seem to use "WP:BLP concerns" as a frequent rationalization for removing information you consider negative. Please take the time to read the policy, and understand that it's not a catch-all, but rather a requirement that we adhere to the laws and rules regarding defamatory content and libelous accusations. The major points of the policy is the importance of reliably sourcing and neutral presentation of information. Be careful not to misinterpret and/or accidentally misrepresent the requirements of WP:BLP; some of your recent assertions regarding point of policy are questionable (but usually moot, as there are other (more germane) policies/guidelines that have the same effect). Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * People seem to forget that these articles are many times about real people. I use BLP to illustrate some of the core principles of WP.  Even if that particular item was a reliable source, it was inserted only to denegrate BOR, and make him look stupid.  I think you would agree that this is not the purpose of Bibliographies on WP (even if he does stupid things from time to time).  You and I may not agree on much, but you must agree that my history here has not involved insertion of contentious material in any BLP I have worked on.  Valid criticism is one thing, but I think you would agree that that was just drivel.  Arzel (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the content meet with the external link guideline? Not as a primary source, which is why I removed it.  However, I still assert that you're interpreting the scope of WP:BLP too broadly... it's simply not a justification to remove information you believe serves only to "denegrate" a subject.  As a primary source, it is not suitable for inclusion in the article itself, and I don't believe it meets with the spirit of WP:EL either (which is why I removed it).  As an interesting twist, Keith Olbermann has picked up on the video and has issued a criticism on tonight's (12 May 08) episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which means it's now criticism from a reliable secondary source.  This may open the door for inclusion elsewhere, especially if additional secondary sources emerge.  I don't think we've heard the last of this.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who cares if Olbermann picked up on it, there is no news there, it is several years old, and the only purpose is to mock and denegrate. WP is not tabloid journalism, which is not to say that KO frequently trades in exactly that.  Arzel (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing for its inclusion, Arzel... I'm pointing out that one of the reasons against inclusion (RS concerns) has now been eliminated. I'm also pointing out that WP:BLP is not a cart blanche justification for removal of material, as you often assert.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I am not saying WP:BLP is the end all means of justifications, just tht people seem to forget that there are overiding elements of BLP that trumps other policies. As in this case, it is much simpler to stick with BLP because then you don't have to worry about someone coming back with an alternate source.  Additionally, KO is not the end all of RS for BOR.  If he were then every single little thing that BOR does would be included (KO makes sure to rip into BOR whenever he gets a chance.)  WP should not be the boxing ring for KO and BOR.  Arzel (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right... I forgot your penchant for then attributing it to some sort of grudgematch between him and Keith Olbermann... please read my original reply, which clearly states (notice the qualification "if" clause, emphasis in original): "This may open the door for inclusion elsewhere, especially if additional secondary sources emerge."  We now have Stephen Colbert also addressing the clip (satire), which both validates my original statement (door opened for inclusion) and invalidates your response (that this is only the result of some KO / BOR feud)...  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
Users are not required to keep warnings on their talk pages. Removing them is a sign of acknowledgment; re-adding old warning serves no purpose other than to try and make someone look bad. Edits like this and this are inappropriate and disparaging. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine Arzel (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin James (broadcaster)
If you have time, you might consider popping by Kevin James (broadcaster)‎ and offering your opinion regarding the section about his appearance on Hardball, which has ballooned to four paragraphs now. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I made some cuts as well. I don't have a personal opinion about the story or reaction to what Bush said, but I don't think that Kevin James' Bio should be the place for discussion or the primary place to vet this particular issue.  It probably deserves it's own article, with the Kevin James aspect a minor part.  Arzel (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson
You are also in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please see the "Characterizing opinions of people's work" section of WP:NPOV. You have not answered why adding a controversies section (regardless of content) is inappropriate and yet you have removed it three times. It seems you are trying to remove any criticism of Carlson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangala3 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Arzel. You've been mentioned at the 3RR Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For super clarification, since you apparently have missed the point thus far... to your question "if someone puts uncited critical information or poorly cited critical information into a BLP and nooone [sic]  else removes it it should just stay because of the 3RR?" No, but your reaction certainly should not be to go on a multi-day edit war without regard to WP:3RR (without asking for help), especially when the libelous nature of the information is questionable.  What you should do is choose to ask for assistance via one of the at least half-dozen other options (as I've mentioned before).  If you choose to go the edit war route, it shouldn't come as a surprise when your conduct gets reported as questionable.  To then go and file an ANI complaint against the person who reported your questionable conduct, especially with the "I'm going to come after you now" attitude AND completely dodging any personal responsibility or acknowledging that there are better ways to deal with the issue than an edit war, means you're letting passion cloud your judgment.  This isn't the result of a grudge, it's a result of your conduct -- I report 3RR violations whenever I see them... you just happened to be the one edit warring in this particular case.  Given your pattern of routinely scrubbing negative content from conservative-focused articles (as noted by an administrator), I am pretty sure that it's me rather than the report that upsets you.  I welcome informed discourse and productive activities towards finding mutually acceptable content.  I do not, nor will I ever, condone people who edit war (no matter what side of the debate they may choose).  It is my most sincere hope that you learn from this, and realize it's not the who, but the what.  Best of luck.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Given your previous history with me I can assume no other reason for your report than a personal grudge you have against me. Seriously, you have anoyn editors adding info of a contentious nature the and you say the rules of 3RR do not apply because they don't appear to be the same user???  If you have a problem with BLP rules then I suggest you go complain there instead.  Furthermore I believe if a user-check were done that they would end up being the same user, additionally I did leave a message on their talk page.  Also, you continued [sic] ing of me is really starting to piss me off.  Perhaps you can spend your time developing a spell-check for WP instead of filing bogus 3RR reports against other users.  For all of your rhetoric of claiming to welcomed informed discourse and productive activities, you history of confrontation with anyone that disagrees with you shows otherwise.  As for the "I'm going to come after you now" BS, let us not forget who was watching whom.  You didn't just magically come to that site by pure chance.  Why don't you just try appologizing once instead of continuing to grinde your axe in my face.  Arzel (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous for you to claim anonymous editors editing a page somehow means all rules don't apply. This isn't conservapedia - we add criticism to both liberal and conservative articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangala3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarrification. Blaxthos claimed that the 3RR didn't apply to the anoyn because they were different users.  I wasn't talking directly at any anoynomous editor, and have rephrased my statement to make it clear what I was talking about.  Arzel (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation
I hadn't thought to check E.D. Hill's article, but you're right, it's probably sufficient being just there. Thanks, and have a good day :). Chris M. (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Realclearpolitics
Please, keep the article NPOV, failure to do so will result in a report. If you have nothing constructive to add to the article then the solution is simple: leave it alone and quit taking real information out of it. The wiki article itself describes RCP as a news aggregator and blog, if you don't feel that's fair then you're trump is with the words "news aggregator and blog." If you felt 'conservative' modifying 'blog' implied the news wasn't categorically conservative, then the NPOV move was to move the word conservative earlier in the sentence so that it seems to modify everything mentioned as a component of the site. I ended up doing the latter. This is an obvious attempt to insert your personal bias through the art of omission, however I live by "innocent until proven guilty."

I have no problem if you add "liberal" to the Keith Olberman or George Soros articles, just please don't be annoying and undo productive work. 75.92.15.232 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * re:"You have no evidence to add conservative blog to RCP. The article which you seem bent on including makes no mention of RCP being a conservative blog. Just because a conservative magazine did an article on RCP does not prove that RCP is conservative."
 * Please actually read the article:
 * McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."


 * "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.a.davis (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to the current debate over the intro paragraph on the RealClearPolitics page. I agree with all your concerns about the bias in the intro and have been working to get it changed. However, the other side has the page on lockdown and won't allow any change until there's "consensus," which there clearly will never be. That leads me to a larger concern I have about the editing process. I'm posting it here because I can't seem to get anything other than silence and maybe an occasional glib response when I post it on the RCP talk page. Here's what I posted a few days ago:

"Why is the current version the one that gets to stay up until we come to a consensus? As I noted above, the controversial quote was added on May 28. Before that, it wasn't in there. It seems more logical to revert the page back to a version without the controversial quote and then have Aelffin and others see if they can get consensus for a change. The way we're doing it now gives all the power to people who want to make controversial changes. Basically, you enlist two or three people to back you up, you make a controversial change, and then when anyone reverts the page, you claim that they should discuss on the talk page and gain consensus before reverting back to a more balanced version. Doesn't seem like a very effective way to create accurate pages."

I know you may be powerless, but I just wanted to see if there's anything you or another editor can do to change the page back to a more balanced version while we have this debate. Again, they've set it up so that any change will lead to a lockdown of the page. I'm new to wikipedia editing, but if this is how things are allowed to work, it's a major flaw. Again, thanks for your contributions.Kadams810 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

June 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * I didn't restore that info to the Keith Olbermann article because I did not notice you had removed it. I have restored it now that you have brought it to my attention. I have no idea what that has to do with your 3RR violation, however. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you explain why you reported me, when it is clear that it was two seperate issues. I specifically didn't revert Nick326 again to avoid 3RR.  I reported to ANI because I was in a position where I couldn't revert him, and couldn't report for 3RR because he hadn't violated 3RR.  I did leave a notice on his page, which you failed to note as well.  He was inserting material in violation of BLP (which should negate the 3RR).  You are an ADMIN and You SHOULD know better.  Our issue was entirely different, I even commented on talk and your first reaction was to report me.  I remarked on the KO article because of the apparent hypocrisy that you have shown.  I've also seen that the blocking admin has been an admin for less than 4 months, and doesn't seem to have even reviewed the edits.  I am extremely dissapointed in you and your actions, but if you would rather revert to making spurious reports rather than an adult discussion I guess I have no recourse.  Arzel (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why there is any hypocrisy when I made the same edits to both articles, or what that would make a bit of difference if I did not. Regardless, you have flouted the 3RR too many times and edit warred too many times, using BLP as an excuse for your actions. You didn't discuss anything with the new user, you threatened him.  What a great welcome to Wikipedia that was!  The simple fact is, you broke the 3RR and perhaps this block will get your attention.  Your behavior needs to change. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you feel it is fine to violate WP:BLP policies? Furthermore, I didn't threaten the new user, I simply stated that he may be blocked, what did he do?  continued to insert the same material in violation of WP:BLP.  Do you even know the rules for removal of contentious material within a BLP?  I thought not.  Arzel (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further Clarification. This sentence from the above link editors are advised to seek help from an administrator  is precisely why I made the ANI report, and you criticized me for that as well... I have to ask, which is more important, your interpretation of WP:BLP or actually trying to follow WP:BLP rules, because at this point it seems like the only safe thing for an editor to do is leave in contencious material for fear of a block.  Arzel (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My advise to you is this:
 * Clearly identify your reverts as BLP reverts in the edit summary.
 * Only invoke BLP in cases of clearly defamatory edits.
 * Avoid invoking BLP on articles in which you have also been edit warring.
 * Attempt discussion with the other editor, especially if that editor is a new user. Engage them politely. Do not threaten them with a block.
 * In the cases of persistent edits, step back and let other editors continue the work. Use the BLP noticeboard to ask for assistance.


 * Remember that not everyone is going to agree that an edit violates BLP, so when in doubt, it's best to stay within the bounds of the 3RR policy. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right I didn't do that, but given two other editors also removed the same information from the same page I don't really see how it is relevant in this instance.
 * I thought it was pretty clear, and given the history of the user is was clear that they were vandalising.
 * To say I was edit-waring is a huge leap. Your issue and this issue were completely different instances.  I might also question why you felt compelled to add that EL to the page at that time.
 * I did. I did not threaten a block.  There is no indication that the user even reads his messages, and you can see he was blocked again for doing the same thing.
 * I did, you will notice that I made no more reverts of his material after the first two. I should have gone to the BLP noticeboard instead of ANI, but I don't see how that makes much of a huge difference. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care for your insinuation in the third point above. I make my edits when I make my edits, regardless of the actions of others. And you are responsible for your reverts, regardless of the actions of others.


 * The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism.  You should be more conservative with what you label vandalism and a BLP violation and you will not run into trouble.  You say other editors were reverting him - you could have relied on them for assistance.  And you have attempted to discuss the issue, which no one seems to have done, including (troublingly) the admin who blocked him.  You claim you did not threaten a block, but the message you left was pretty clearly a threat.  If you don't see it as a threat, then you should leave the interactions with new users to other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relied on other editors for what? There were three of us that reverted this "new" user, none of use did more than two reverts on the SD page.  You make it sound like I was a vigilante, when there is clear evidence that other editors felt the same way.  You really need to relax on what you think is a threat.  To say someone may get in trouble if they don't stop what they are doing is a threat is silly.  A threat is a statement with a intent to do harm, since I have neither the capacity to do anything to them nor did I claim that I would it is hardly a threat.  It was a warning, you need to redefine your own misunderstanding of what a threat is.  Arzel (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't about me and what I think, this is about your inappropriate interactions with new users. Instead of splitting hairs to justify your actions, you should take a gentler tone with new users instead of threatening them. See WP:BITE. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PTR
Answered on my talk.--PTR (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized
This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

John McCain Affirmative Action edit
You added a quote by Barack Obama to John McCain's political positions page and attributed the quote to John McCain. WTF?

Your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_John_McCain&diff=228533234&oldid=228532094 Read the source carefully: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/affirmative.action/index.html RobRedactor (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
Just wanted to let you know that with this edit, you lost all credibility with me. I was curious to see how long it would take for you to bother looking at your own edit. Some 9.5 hours later, you finally did. I suspect that if no one else had made any other edits to that section, you might never have noticed. Please edit more carefully in the future. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards
Hi Arzel, you might want to participate in this article about the BLP issues. I am letting you know because of my knowledge that you have consistently raised BLP issues in Sean Hannity, Kevin James and Bill O Reilly articles. I thought i would let you know just in case you didnt notice. Dock Hi 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I am aware of that issue, and had considered taking part, but it is moving so fast back and forth that I haven't had time to keep up with all of the comments and stay completely up to date with the action.  Arzel (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bravo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannity book
I'd invite you to participate in the discussion taking place in the article about the book Let_Freedom_Ring:_Winning_the_War_of_Liberty_over_Liberalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds more canvassing than what I did because he knew you would support his position. Dock Hi 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly, considering I was in the similar dicussion on Savage's book. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And supporting the removal, of course, this is canvassing. Dock Hi 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Conservatism
I'm thinking there is a need for a Conservatism WikiProject, to help make articles reflecting conservative philosophy from being besmirched. If you're interested, let me know.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't approach articles with an agenda to protect or harm any one specific ideology.  While it may appear that I am more supportive of conservatives, that is more of a function of the population of WP which has a greater number of people with a liberal ideology, which translates in to less of a need to remove needless criticism and POV from those articles in general.  Additionally, I don't have that much free time to spend on WP.  That said, if you do want a neutral point of view then I will be happy to give my opinion.  Arzel (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; just canvassing.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit of yours on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
Hi, I reverted your edit on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Please see the new section on the article talk page for my reasoning. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

John McCain reply
This is not an established policy and you know it. There is no consensus as to whether or not it is a reliable source.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for the warning. A better use of time might be to rethink your and AzureFury thoughts on McCain by trying to impart his political position by means of original research.  I realize you are for Obama, but to imply that McCain is for the draft because of those questionable source (most of which fail WP:RS) is incredulous. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that McCain supports the draft and I did not do any original research. Furthermore, how is Countdown with Keith Olbermann not a reliable source? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * KO presents opinion, his opinion is certainly not a valid source to present McCain's oficial position on the Draft. Futhermore, KO simply parrots the same YouTube video which is already not a reliable source.  I don't see how KO opining on an unreliable source suddenly makes the source reliable.  Arzel (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keith Olbermann's opinion isn't even presented in the article, only the question and answer. What evidence do you have that Olbermann was using a Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw recording. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is your personal opinion that Olbermann is not a creditable source, and does not stand weight. Going from the same logic, I could argue that conservatists (sp? firefox says its wrong) hosts like O'reilly aren't a credible source, or for that matter, ANY newsperson. No one is free from bias. A good journalist tries to present as objective a report as possible. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury
This user edit warred, violating the 3RR rule, and your solution was to protect his version (which he edit warred) and not rebuke this user? Exactly what kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. It is one possible method of de-escalating an edit war, just like a 3RR block. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, this user has been disruptive on the RS noticeboard, in this article, and from his talk page other articles as well. You have given him no reason to change his behaviour, and at the very least have legitimized his method for getting what he wants.  Arzel (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what the dispute resolution procedure is for. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you are an admin, why file more issues when it could have been adequetly addressed right now? I swear the beuracracy here is worse than that of our own government.  Arzel (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding criticism of O'reilly

 * I have made a lengthy opinion on the subject of criticism here.
 * I welcome your opinions there.
 * &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the entire section.
If you disagree with the term, please change it. I did put: accusations of ambushing. That does not mean it is true. Only accusations. That is what critics said, and the page is on criticism. You seem to have a penchant to remove parts offending you instead of revising it. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a penchant for using unreliable sources. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What you consider unreliable sources is not the rule of thumb. Huffington post is cited elsewhere in the article. Countdown is a news show, as is The Factor (which is both debatable). A video of the actual event is reliable. Please explain to me how a video of the actual events, from and shown by Free Press, is unreliable. The video does not offer commentary (direct one), and the MSNBC cite is a report, which contains the video from Free Press (therefore I am sourcing the actual event one so that people can watch it without commentary from KO, which I though would be seen by conservatisms as more objective, but you seem to disagree). If videos were not reliable, then there would be no use for template. I would think that quite a few people would agree a video of the actual event published by Free Press/Uptake, in the NCMR, which is supported by Free Press (of course, which BOR called a Far Leftist Fiesta) is reliable. Please do not associate your own interpretation of what is "reliable" and what is not as absolute. In many cases, there are exceptions for such, if the source is relevant and verifiable. In addition, there are already three sources (four counting huffington post, more counting others). Many would take one or two as enough. In addition, if there are already sources, the your argument does not (to me) justify completely removing a section (which I thank you for having stopped doing so). There is the template.
 * Perhaps you are mixing "undesirable" with "unreliable." Liberals would consider BOR's show unreliable as well, according to my interpretation of your usage of the word. Does that mean it is not a usable source? No. It does not. Therefore, please do not associate your own political (note: can't think of right word, closest I can think of atm) views in interpreting the reliability of news reports/video.


 * note My above comment is based on what I think your current viewpoint towards sources such as CDw/KO are based on other sections on your talk page, and may be inaccurate due to changes that may have occurred.
 * &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly
Please stop removing the entire section using specious arguments. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this a WARNING for your continued abusive edits.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Gorilla Joke
The Washington Post is a blog? Keith Olbermann used the Tucson Citizen as his source. It's a newspaper. Once again you're deleting factual material for no reason.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try to cloud the issue. The source of this is a blog from a former Democratic chairman pushing an unproven allegation over 20 years old and is being used for purely partisan political issues.  Arzel (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove it. You're doing WP:OR and you know it.  Deleting this quote rather than attributing or explaining it is exactly as partisan.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 10:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a warning template that says:
 * Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive.


 * Notice the part that says: Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material.

&eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck
Hi Arzel, just wanted to say good luck with your editing. I have tried to edit the BOR article but it is frustrating. I am a deletionist at heart and would rather see less than more, but that is just me. I also agree with your stance on blogs/RS and editors violating the spirt of BLP. I don't want to edit war over this so I will slow down for now. Cheers, --Tom 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Luck is what you make of it. I am finding myself with less and less time to deal with WP and the juviniles that would wish to turn it into their own personal bashing site.  Unless some admins decide to take a serious stance on the use of Blogs and other questionable sources within WP ,and specifically BLP's, it is only a matter of time until someone sues WP for Libel that sticks.  WP will quickly become irrelevant if this continues.  Cheers though.  :) Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:V on non self-published blogs. Also, wikipedia's already been sued before, and won. In addition, one cannnot be sued for libel if said thing is true. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain on deregulation
Before you delete this information again, please read the cited source. I'm not engaging in synthesis. The information is all taken from Senate voting records and the cited Washington Post article. JamesMLane t c 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

you're right
You're right. You're not in the same league as the others, and my blanket statement was unfair. Correction/apology issued. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FNC Criticism
Reply here:. --Floridianed (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd reply here: --Floridianed (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

3rd reply here: --Floridianed (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another reply here:.


 * Thanks for your last input. Regards,--Floridianed (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FNC RfC
Hi, I wanted to send out a note to a couple of users that I have noticed active in the past regarding the FNC article. I have initiated a RFC regarding the introduction of the FNC article. I have been trying to gain some awareness to this. I'm not sure which way you lean on this issue, quite frankly I'm glad for that, but I think more voices would be well received here. Thanks again. Wikiport (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Soapbox issues and BLP violations are to be removed from Talk pages as well. Rumors regarding a living person which serve only to attack that person are not legitimate comments.  Feel free to explain why what you think is bad practice is worse than violating WP:BLP.  Arzel (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: my comment that you deleted from the the Joe Wurzelbacher article. What soapbox ?  I was just pointing out that republicans seem to have a thing for guys who clean crud out of pipes. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration on tax issues
I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:
 * Requests for arbitration

reword user page?
To go some day. Possibly change to "great desire to visit"? It really minor and possibly not worth the change. However, I heard that there is a travel bug. As one travels more, they add more places. If so, your list will expand as you travel more. (I saw your name and comment about Joe the Plumber). Chergles (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, and yes I suspect my list will grow. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why people are angry about Joe the Plumber
Hi, Arzel, you asked about this on the talk page of Joseph Wurzelbacher. You and I have been on the same side of the argument over there, trying to keep unrelated scandalous material out of the article even though some people seem determined to put it in there.

From the point of view of a liberal Democrat like me, Joe the Plumber is an aggressive wise-guy who tried to embarrass Barack Obama with a trick question, claiming that he was about to buy a business that just coincidentally had revenues at the exact cutoff where the Obama tax plan sets a higher percentage.

Obama treated this as a real question and explained in detail what the provisions of his tax program were at the cutoff point, and how other features of the plan could benefit a small business. Later, this exchange got picked up by the Drudge Report and Joe became a willing celebrity, claiming to be an undecided voter at the same time that he denounced Obama's "socialist" ideas. John McCain made him a poster child for his claim that Obama's tax plan hurt hard-working small businesses. People wanted to learn more about Joe the Plumber and news media responded with info that was easy to get online, mostly from government--for example, voter registration lists, lists of people who have plumbing licenses, even income information from his divorce records.

And I think what made fans of Obama angry was that it turned out, from this public information, that Joe the Plumber's question was a big fake. There was no way this guy could have been getting ready to buy a business making $250K profit. Even the business he claims to be thinking about buying makes maybe half as much money--and he's nowhere near buying that one.

It also turned out, unfortunately for Joe, that the public record also contains a lot of embarrassing information. The tax lien, the driver's license problem, the divorce stuff which afaik nobody has yet tried to put into the article. But people have tried to put the other stuff in just to show, I think, that the John McCain heroic image of Joe the Plumber is a big phony, just one more case (like Sarah Palin) where McCain jumped into a relationship without vetting the person he was throwing his arms around. I personally don't think this dirty stuff is appropriate to the article or to Wikipedia.

None of this aggressive anger against Joe the Plumber was orchestrated by "the Obama campaign." People just tend to dislike very much somebody who (they feel) has unfairly attacked somebody they like. Left-wing people at Daily Kos feel this way. Right-wing people at Little Green Footballs feel this way. And very angry people are often spiteful.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing that Joe the Plumber comes out of this episode with his own right-wing radio show and a lot bigger salary than he is getting now. betsythedevine (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I think you are largely correct about the reason, but I think that the approach many democrats are taking in this matter is unfortunate. I would agree that Joe appears to have baited Obama with the question, but it really is a good question to ask, and I don't think it was a trick question.  It was a leading question to be sure, but Obama could have presented a better answer.  Level-headed democrats should be wary about the approach taken largely by the MSM in taking down Joe.  They have presented an [| Ad Hominem] against him turned him into a Strawman where instead of addressing the question and Obama's answer it is much easier to simply tear down the man and thus make the question and answer irrelavant.


 * This aspect of vetting Joe is largely pointless to me. He and his question, while personal, really speak to the larger issue that McCain has been trying to make, that Obama's tax policies are socialist in nature.  There is really no reason to vet him; he is not running for office (at least not now).  I think another large part of the reason behind this is that Obama has made a statement that could really play well for McCain and republicans, and he and his supporters are fearful that it could cost him the election.


 * In general I think what has happened is not good for America. While Joe's description about the business and potential income were exagerated, the personal attacks against him (tax liens, divorce, drivers license, relationship to the Keating 5 scandal) serve only to tear him down, make his question appear to be not credible.  We both know that even if his background story was accurate, the rest would still be presented in order to deflect the question.  If this can happen once it can happen again, and this will make people less likely in the future to ask these kinds of questions of our elected leaders.


 * As to his future, I don't think he will be getting a talk show anytime soon, but he could very well get some business for this plumbing company and realize his original question, which would be quite ironic. I guess we'll have to wait and see about that.  In any case I appreciate the reasoned discource.  Arzel (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think most Democrats think Obama gave a bad answer, though. He gave a detailed, respectful answer off the top of his head that happened to include a phrase that has been taken out of context. Our problem at Wikipedia is the sieving affect. People who are angry with Joe and want to do something about it gravitate to the article and try to influence its content, so we are "collecting" people who feel that way there. The furor should die down pretty soon, in my opinion. betsythedevine (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Arzel: Increasing the tax rate from 36% to 39% on income over $250,000, restoring the level prevailing under President Clinton, which was lower than the level prevailing under President Reagan, is "socialist in nature"?? Can we please dial down this extremist description of a proposed change that lies well within the mainstream, moderate, non-socialist American spectrum of views? (Naturally, you are entitled to a bit more extremism on your own talk page than in a main Wikipedia article.) Anomalocaris (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't say it, McCain did. Furthermore the increasing of the tax rate is not the supposedly socialistic nature.  It is the redistribution of wealth.  A large percentage of americans already pay no taxes, and under Obama's plan they would recieve money via a "Tax Cut" (really a tax credit).  No please tell me what you call a income tax plan that gives money to people that don't pay any income taxes already?....A negative tax rate?  If you really want to lay off the extremism, perhaps you should start by stopping your desire to trash Joe.  Arzel (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not clear as to how much Obama proposes to cut positive taxes versus create or increase tax credits that are greater than tax obligations. In any event the Negative income tax is not socialist in nature, having been promoted by Milton Friedman and President Richard Nixon. From a conservative point of view, negative income tax has some advantages over other other methods of addressing poverty including minimum wage laws and traditional welfare and other benefit programs such as food stamps. I do not have any desire to trash JtP, so I can't stop something I haven't started. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to cut through the clutter of the WP:BLP discussion, if figured I'd reach out to you directly. I think we can agree that opponents of McCain, have used the lien, among other things, to undermine McCain's continued use of "Joe the Plumber" for political gain,. There is no doubt the lien is part of an attack on Joe's credibility and character. Likewise, McCain continues to promote other aspect of Joe's Horatio Alger mythology for political purposes. In this context, I think we can, and should include the lien information as part of the article. If Joe where just another "Joe", I'd support your view that this is unnecessary. But he's smack in the middle of a legitimate political debate and has not avoided interviews. Finally, I wonder if you have conflated biased political speech outside of Wikipedia with attempts to cover it inside Wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was unfamiliar with Alger, but I will agree that McCain has used the story of Joe to make his point about Obama's tax policies. However, this doesn't validate the violation of BLP policies in this manner.  There is absolutely no evidence that his prior tax problems (which apparently have now been rectified, but probably will never be reported my MSM) have any relationship to his encounter with Obama.  You admit that they he is being attacked by opponents of McCain, this alone should give you pause as to whether it belongs or not.  This attack on Joe is simply disgraceful, and the fact that it continues here does nothing but to prove that WP is biased.  As to your final point, no.  I am very moderate, and tend to only disagree with those that are biased to the left or to the right.  I partake in to writing at all, unless you consider scientific journals to which I have been a co-author several time.  Arzel (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To refine my point, I think the lien information is valid as part a further discussion of the escalated use of "Joe the Plumber" on both sides (Republican and Democrat). I read your comment on the BLP discussion that as it stands it lacks context, and I completely agree.  The research around his license and tax history was a political response to McCain's political use of Joe's interaction which continues today.  One tactic to counter the mythology is to fact check.  Where you and I differ, I think, is how harmful this information is to Joe and it's meaning in the context of the article. And between you and me, if I were Joe, I'd be more ashamed about overstating my success and status as a plumber than a small tax lien.  That took balls to say on camera with a straight face.Mattnad (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Talk:Joe_the_Plumber Inclusionist (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit, not the editor
Don't "assume" my motivation as you did here. Having this twice in the mainbody is overkill. Moving it to the lead as you did now is even better and fine with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This wasn't directed at you, it was more of a general statement. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Insulting message from vandalizing anon
Ha ha ha. Loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.42.2 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, the terminal looozer is this vandalizing IP. Hard to imagine somebody like that is an Obama supporter, didn't he ever notice the messages about bringing people together, and no red or blue states just purple states? Feel free to remove such garbage from your talk page. For myself, although our politics differ, I have been impressed by your dignified and principled efforts to make Wikipedia say what you thought should be in here. Wikipedia needs more editors like you and fewer like that jackass who left you the message. betsythedevine (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad part is this person thinks I am a republican. Thanks for the kind words.  Arzel (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Caution: you came close to being blocked for edit warring at RealClearPolitics. This nearly tipped you over William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN
Arzel, I like your work on other articles, and I was hoping you might take a look at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. You seem very level-headed and knowledgeable about the issues, and it's time for cooler heads to prevail in a content dispute there. I would greatly appreciate any help you might provide. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, please be aware that there is currently a report at WP:AN/I on the above user, who appears to be canvassing now for support, as multiple sockpuppets appear to be heading towards indef-block. There is absolutely no reason not to edit in ACORN -- heck, I'd encourage it -- but be aware you are probably being canvassed by a long-term abuser of Wikipedia. -- Good Damon 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back
We missed in JtP. Mattnad (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

KO Criticism of Clinton
Her status as the next Secretary of State doesn't mean that we can ignore the fact that nothing in the section has a source to say that Olbermann's criticism is relevant to mention in the article. See my response to your comment on the KO talk page. NcSchu ( Talk ) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice
There's an AFD I thought you might be interested in. Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)_(2nd_nomination) Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Explaining "scrubbing"
That section at Talk:Barack Obama was simply two editors ranting and attacking one another. It wasn't constructive to the dispute currently being discussed there. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

 * Yes, it can be frustrating. As I told someone else there seem to be a lot of Asperger's types who edit on Wikipedia, and from personal experience I know what they are like: smart, articulate in a somewhat stilted way, oppositional, stubborn, narrowly focused, and largely unable to admit error. Believe it or not the Olbermann article is substantially better now than it was a couple of years ago when it was stunningly fawning. The improvements have not come easily, however. Frankly, it doesn't bother me much that Olbermann is not explicitly labeled as a liberal in his article, as long as polemicists on the other side are not explicitly labeled as conservatives in theirs (the informal rule is supposed to be that such labels won't be used when the articles' subjects don't identify themselves that way). However, when an editor such as Blaxthos finds a way to indirectly label O'Reilly (who calls himself a traditionalist) as a conservative while simultaneously fighting a parallel description of Olbie as a liberal, Wikipedia becomes an Alice in Wonderland endeavor. Although I don't know the reason why, one of the best and fairest editors I've encountered since I've been doing this, Switzpaw, has recently "retired". Maybe it was because of a job offer in the real world. On the other hand, maybe he just got tired of the nonsense here. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You know better. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos, when you make snide remarks towards me within a talk page don't come and bitch about being called on it. I called you an "ass" because you went out of your way to point out my misspelling of "Label".  Thanks for proving my point though.  Arzel (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When quoting another, one should keep those remarks verbatim, including any grammatical errors in the text, and note those errors with [sic] -- which only indicates those errors weren't due to transcription. Do you really think that insulting other editors is going to make you look smarter, wiser, or mature?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I see you were only trying to be helpful. We would not want one to confuse "Lable" and "Label" on an all important talk page.  I would then have to assume that you typed in my comments rather than cut and paste.  Next time I'll have my assistant perform copyedit on my replies.  However, you might want to just use control+c to copy and control+v to paste the comment in the future.  Then you don't have to worry about adding [sic] to words you determine are misspelled.  Arzel (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It comes naturally, I suspect. As I said, Arzel, there are a lot of Asperger types on Wikipedia. It is a fascinating phenomenon which you might enjoy reading about. I'm sorry ... about which you might enjoy reading. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported your bad faith warning. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was warning you in good faith because of your bad faith blankings. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good faith would have been going to the talk page and discussing my edits. Do you even know what blanking is?  Do you even know what good faith is?  You assumed that I was vandalising material, threatened me, and now claim it was in good faith?  Arzel (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good faith would have been you bringing up your concerns with the section on the talk page prior to blanking it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? There was a discussion, I posted to it here  I removed the material at that time, there was no disenting opinion for another 10 hours.  You made NO comments prior to your threat.  Arzel (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You commented on the talk page after blanking the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 3 minutes. You commented over an hour have you threatened me.  Arzel (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking
I have reported your bad faith blanking. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver
So I note that you're altering Silver's attribution from "statistician" to "political-poll aggregator" at the 2009 Tea Protests article. That doesn't square with the first sentence of his Wikipedia bio and runs the risk of violating WP:BLP and WP:RS. You might want to take more care with that. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party edit
Arzel, My apologies, I have no problem with your adding N. I didn't see your edit in the list when I began my reversion (server lag?). My intent was simply to get back to a consensus edit. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the additions you made to the Turnout section of 2009 Tea Party protests. Sorry for the trouble. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC
Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: You might as well block him
I would, but I'm not yet an admin. :) I've reported him to WP:AIV. Thanks for reverting his change.  TheAE  talk / sign  04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson
The user Mangala3 has re-added left wing non-sense back on her page! John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Now the user JamesMLane re-added it!!! John Asfukzenski (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

U cant give up you gotta get that stuff off there man! John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit War at Dick Cheney
Please, rather than simply reverting edits at Dick Cheney, can you actually talk about the issue on the talk page. Please explain wny you believe your version is better. Thank you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Late-term abortion

 * Since ole Blaxthos and I have already had more than our share of spats, I thought I would put this on your talk page rather than on his. You may have already noticed this, but for what it's worth, there is a Wikipedia article on late-term abortion that treats it as a medical practice, not as a political one. Moreover, it cites articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the practice which also use this term. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did see that, and was thinking and making a note of JAMA, but didn't fell like bashing my head against the wall, since I don't think it will make much of a difference. Regards.  Arzel (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Respect
Arzel, I've got to congratulate you fully. Your ability to maintain a calm head and get under the skin of Gamiel and Blaxthos is a fresh breath of air considering that they get under the skin of all people trying to neutrally edit articles. I really respect your ability to also use the Wikipedia laws, you seem to know them better than those to Admins. I only hope that you get to be an Admin (if you're not already) you'd do a wonderful job of balancing the bias of those two. 71.163.48.73 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You seem to be engaging in an edit war at David Letterman, against the clear consensus established at the talkpage. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Unitanode 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox News

 * sigh* someone has re-openned the conservative network argument. You have been a past contributor to this discussion, could you help me get others who participated in the past to come once again? Soxwon (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding... :( Soxwon (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

About the Bachmann edit
The "original research" was done by Sarah Palin, not me. Palin's facebook page credits Bachmann for her views on Ezekiel Emanuel. Bachmann quoted from Betsy McCaughey's article Deadly Doctors, and so did Palin. Sorry if you think the information was "negative", but again, it was Palin who credited Bachmann for her opinion on what she called a "death panel". I understand that the main focus of the Bachmann article should be Bachmann, but sometimes Bachmann's influence in unintelligible without some context.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is not up to US to provide the context. Arzel (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So it's up to us to be unintelligible, or confuse people? WHARGARBL!Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you recognize that the "OR" in question was done not by me but by Palin on her facebook page? It's pretty clear cut.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the point should not be whether you think Bachmann's speech about Ezekiel Emanuel is "drastic" or "negative", but whether it accurately reflects her views and her influence.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party
Help me out here. We quite obviously have rather different viewpoints here but I want to get that Tea Party article nice and neutral so neither side has any reason to complain. My first edit changed the article so that it said the protesters were protesting a perceived threat of the national deficit expanding. You reverted it saying that the article that was used as a citation doesn't say that. This is true. The article cited is not neutral (and why should it be, it's not from wikipedia). Because it is unfeasible in the course of one article to prove that the deficit will or will not expand under Obama I thought this was a good middle ground that conveys what the protesters meant without supporting their viewpoint.

Second edit! Same deal. The source is bias. The coverage was certainly not mostly mocking (I think Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Mr O'Reilly were very supportive of the cause), but again, we can't prove this for the sake of an argument. Better, and more neutral to say, that there was widespread media coverage. With this one I can find an alternative source if this would be acceptable.

I am fully prepared to go through this point by point until the article is neutral. Just help me out! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with making things neutral, but at the same time we can't attribute statements to sources.


 * That said, I don't really see a problem with the 1st issue. These protests started largely as a result of the bank bailouts and the stimulus of 2009.  The result of these two actions is increased debt.  There is no perception about it, once they were signed (especially the stimulus) we began to sell bonds and increase our national debt.  So I don't think you are taking one side or the other by saying that they are protesting an increase in debt.  Now we could probably ammend the section to indicate that this is not only a protest against Obama increasing the debt level, but the Bush administration with the previous stimulus and the bailout in October.  Not sure if there are reference that mention the stimulus of 2008 (I certainly thought that was a waste of money as well and needlessly increased the debt).


 * The 2nd issue is a little different. Response to the protests was largely dismissive and there were many attacks against FNC as leading or promoting the event.  There were pro-Obama protests as well.  Simply summarising the sources misses the reason why those sources are even used and is original research.  If you can find a source that makes the statement you wish to present I would be fine with that, but I don't think we can completely ignore that there was a large amount of dismissivness.  Arzel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To your first statement, I have no interest in having a debate about whether the deficit will increase. What I will say is that there are many people on wikipedia who think that the deficit is being decreased in the long run (and even in the short run) by Obama's plan. Again, I am not going to debate the merits of either view. However, it makes the statement objectionable, and it means there are 2 sides arguing, each with their own evidence, over what the 'truth' is. That doesn't sound neutral to me! Saying that the tea-party protesters perceived a large change in the federal deficit seemed neutral to me. However, do you have an alternative suggestion for a phrase that could be used in that sentence which doesn't definitively state the deficit is being raised and still truthfully reflects the beliefs of the tea-party attendants.


 * I think you are confusing Debt with Deficit. The national debt, which is what they are referring, will go up, there is no debate about that.  The yearly deficit, however, is projected to decrease as you have mentioned, but it still expected to be quite large.  I have yet to see a single reference that indicates that the actual Debt will decrease in the next decade (the legnth of CBO forcasts).  This relates to the anger that was growning during the Bush years as he increased the national debt substantially as well.  I think people thought that Obama would work towards decreasing the national debt and he has only doubled down on it.  Arzel (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To the second point! I can't find an article from a verifiable news source which mentions the coverage of the tea-party protests in a neutral way. At all. I think we should be allowed to quote non-neutral sources to illustrate a neutral phenomenon (like attributing the fact that there is a perceived, significant addition to the deficit via obama from a site saying that there is a definitive addition to the deficit). However! If we cannot concede to that point how about putting in pages like this one from CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, etc.etc. to illustrate that all of these institutions have covered the protests in depth?


 * I believe the press action/opinions with regards to the protesters is covered more in-depth at the Media Response section but we haven't gotten to that yet. I would just like the opening statement to acknowledge there was media coverage without adding the subjective view that the media coverage was dismissive. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Links to Searches are not accepted as reliable sources. I don't think it is a problem to state that there was widespread coverage and that not all of it was dismissive, but I think you will have a hard time enforcing that when there is ample evidence and reliable sources that point to expressely dismissive reporting.  Arzel (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Peace
 Richard (talk) has invited to smoke a peace pipe together! Smoking peace pipes promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by offering someone else a peace pipe, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend who just likes to smoke.

Spread the peace by adding to someone's talk page! You can use a parameter to insert the name of the recipient and add your own text to the message with a second. Smoking this wiki-peace pipe does not affect your health.

Fox News Channel & Pew Research Study
Hi Arzel. I do consider the information to be relevant, and not undue weight. If you take a look at MSNBC, the same study is reported on. I suggest that we start a talk page discussion on Talk:Fox News and in the mean time either leave both references to the study up or delete both. Sound fair? — Mike : tlk  19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

About the Sarah Palin Death Panel thing
Please look at the quoty version I added, and then see why your "failed verification" tag is one more reason why I wonder why no one ever reads what references have to say. The quoty version isn't perfect, but it does show exactly what the references had to say that everybody missed, for some reason. I used exact quotes mainly for that reason, not because it's the best way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't add the failed verification tag. I did look at your quoted version, and have commented on the article talk page.  I appologize again for saying that you made that second edit.  Arzel (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You, Tdinatale, and Marlin are all engaged in edit warring at Fox News Channel. Please do not continue reverting people's edits when a discussion at the talkpage is ongoing; there is clearly no strong consensus either way yet and making reverts that you know are just going to get undone is pretty pointless. If edit warring continues, the page may be protected or editors may be blocked. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted. Perhaps you could also tell Tommy and Marlin to tone down the Ad Hom's.  Arzel (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mature?
I'm sorry, but you just argued against Rick Sanchez partly based on him impersonating another commentator. What kind of argument is that? That's like saying "I don't like you because you have a big nose like "Pinocchio." Come on dude, I obviously love a discussion but that's not even an argument.. And just because I say what we both know is true, doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith either. Yes I could have toned that down a bit, but I don't have much patience for stupid, pointless arguments. I'm here for the truth and nothing less. Tom (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also see you have a habit of pushing a certain POV by creating articles such as "John McCain presidential eligibility" and deleting liberal's critics of other people. You need to learn to be more neutral in your writing. Tom (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Get your facts straight. I did not create either an article or that section.  That section was started by a seperate editor, I was simply responding to them on my talk page.  Arzel (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you reported me, yay censorship! Thanks for talking it out, like ANI suggests. Good luck. Tom (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you continue along this path you will find it increasingly difficult to work with other people in the future. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, (1) You attacked me too, in case you forgot and (2) I can have discussions with people, just not those who don't like hearing the opposing side and then reporting them because they don't like hearing it. If you don't believe me, ask User:Ragazz (3) Like I said, I could have toned it down. chill out Tom (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's OK it's trivial

 * As the Parisian waiter told my wife after forgetting her order, "No problem". Now, were I Blaxthos it might be a different story. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI regarding this edit. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, to what levels of will you go to try and get me blocked? Arzel (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my freakin God
Thanks for correcting that. I have no idea what I was thinking, but I'll probably laugh about that all day.  Josh  ua In  gram   16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * :) I figured it was a pretty honest mistake and hoped my sarcasm made it through my edit.  Have a good one.  Arzel (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Richard ( talk ) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Perception, not Bias
You are misreading the heading, it's 'Ratings and Reception', not 'Ratings and Perception'. Moving it to that category is a violation and not keeping in with WP:Guidelines. That's why I moved it back. I have no problem with you editing my entry to add to the point, or even bring in a broader perspective, but your edits didn't accomplish that. Instead they seemed to distort the data from the poll and put in a certain WP:POV. I will just leave in your last edit, because I think we will just bang heads over this for no real reason. I don't edit much and was looking for that poll that I saw the other day. I searched the Fox News Wiki entry, and was surprised it wasn't there, so thought I would add it. Hopefully, we can just let it go with your last edit now. Have a good day. DD2K (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Inhofe
I have locked for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Too New?
Hi i saw you discussing weather new or recent papers can be used on the global warming talk page []I thought it might help bolster your argument if you can show that WMC has no problem with the inclusion of new papers in articles anymore :) [] Hope this is of help to you. mark nutley (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agf
Your comment here attacks other editors, and fails to assume good faith as required by policy. I suggest that you delete or strike your comment, and if you do so you're then welcome to similarly strike or delete my response to your comment. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, in all of my editing on WP I have never encountered such a fear of sockpuppets as I have within the Global Warming articles. There seems to be an almost immediate belief that any new editor that is not lock-stop in agreement with AGW that they are a sock-puppet of a previously banned editor, it does not even matter what that person might have to say.  I am not the only one to feel this way, it has been talked about in editorial's outside of WP.  There appears to be a concerted effort by some to get those that don't believe in AGW blocked for seemingly minor disputes, and then blanket banning them as socks if they try to come back.  The fact that I have not seen this kind of atmosphere in other equally controversial topics leads me to believe that the problem that you and other editors have with socks are largely the result the actions of editors that strongly agree with the theory of AGW.  The actions with Jpat only enforce this belief.  I have tried to go back through the sci-baby issue but it is a maze of accounts and I was unable to find the original to see why that person was blocked to begin with.  Perhaps if a different approach was taken with that editor in the beginning the paranoia regarding socks would not be so pervasive.  When the editors of these articles stop asumming-all-editors-are-a-sock others will find it much easier to assume good faith of them.  Arzel (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assumption about me is incorrect – I've said nothing about sockpuppets, and accept that those who think there is evidence of sockpuppetry are acting properly and in good faith. I don't think the attempts on Watt's up to recruit meatpuppets was acceptable, but it seems to have had little effect. Your comments accusing people of making a concerted effort to get those who don't believe in AGW blocked is a blatant failure to assume good faith, and in that light your talk of "the fanantical approach that AGW proponents have towards blocking any opposing views" really does look a personal attack on other editors as well as a misplaced partisan attack on AGW proponents generally. If you can assist with welcoming editors with all points of view and help them to appreciate the need to work within policies that will be a great help, but comments are disruptive when they makes accusations that look like personal attacks. Sockpuppets are a fact of editing on some contentious subjects, particularly when there are strong lobby groups involved, and they should be dealt with properly without inflaming the situation. Thanks, dave souza, talk 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no statement about you, and appologize if it appeared that way. I don't know what you are talking about regarding "Watt's Up"?  However, while stuff like this goes on I have a hard time believing that others are truly acting in good faith themselves.  Arzel (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 20:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
The discussions at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues:. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll and associated TIME entry
The facts will only antagonize "others" if they're clearly coming into the conversation with a chip on their shoulder. Based on your countless edits, allegations of edit warring, and edits which you've been warned about all over your talk page, I see no reason to discount the entry on that basis alone. As I'm sure you'll agree, it's a sad world in which people shut up for fear of delivering an offense that was not even intended. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I do see what you're saying, but the article as it stands is pretty heavy on criticism.  In order for there to be any sort of balance, I thought to include that and let the chips fall where they may.  Should anyone remove it or suggest more negative material, their conduct will speak for itself.  Neutrality is pretty hard to get when you're only hearing one side of the story. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
I think that you will find this YouTube video highly enjoyable. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, particularly the very last line. :)  Arzel (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your FNC Talk Page Edit
Re your edit; not taken personally in the least. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal name
You recently noted, Furthermore, a quick check of the portal finds NO link to the AR4 Crit article. Can you tell me which portal you mean?-- SPhilbrick  T  15:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the page is the GW navbox where all of the related GW articles are. By Nigel's logic it is part of the navbox, because we can't have everyone of those article listed in the see all section.  However, it is not in the navbox.  I am not sure how to find out how many articles link to another article, but I was only able to find one that links to the Crit AR4 article, and since it is not in the navbox I don't really see how anyone would even know it exists unless they specifically search for it.  I see that NSAS has asked that the climategate article be added to the navbox as well, with Scjessy quickly saying that they aren't related.  Arzel (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Selected editors
I noticed the 3 users Gamaliel "respects" included Blaxthos, who has POV pushed hard in several articles (like Hannity and Fox News Channel) and User:JamesMLane, who posts that he is "Hostile to the right wing" on his user page. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bunning Healthcare bill
See the talk page -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Arzel
With regards to your claim that "[you] never said ANYTHING about sources", I direct you to the other Arzel, who specifically asked "Was there a large amount of covereage[sic] about him missing the bill to establish weight?" just hours before. I think this pretty clearly indicates that you're simply policy shopping and certainly not engaged in good faith. When you asked about sourcing with regards to weight after you objected, I gave copious sourcing... yet your opinion remains unchanged. If you are going to be dogmatic about something, best be up front about admitting you're an ideologue -- don't just start throwing up whatever objection you think might be used to support your particular point of view. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, considering that you have never edited that article I find it extremely suspicious that you would show up. Second, I never mentioned anything about sourcing saying that the incident happened.  I asked where are the sources that state this is a notable event, and none of the sources you gave presented any arguement that this was anything other than trivia.  Third, don't give me this good faith crap.  You are hardly the right person to badger anyone about good faith.  Finally, if you use [sic] on another one of my quotes I will report you.  Go troll somewhere else.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - Check out the concept of fait accompli, oft referenced by ArbCom. There's no harassment for disagreeing with you, nor is there harassment for calling you out for blatant bad-faith operation.
 * - Despite what you claim now, I have clearly demonstrated that:
 * You asked for sources demonstrating weight.
 * I provided a multitude of print and broadcast sources from a wide range of media.
 * You claimed you "never said ANYTHING about sources", and you still refuse to change your opinion despite provided sourcing for which you asked.
 * - Report me to whom, and for what exactly? As proper in the King's English, when quoting another person I note spelling and grammatical errors that existed prior to my transcription by using [sic].  This is consistent no matter whom I'm quoting and isn't going to change -- if it upsets you, either learn to spell properly or slow down and take the time to correct your errors.
 * Hope this was helpful. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure ol' Blax sincerely hopes this pendantry is helpful to Arzel. I was beginning to wonder about Blax because for a few weeks, as near as I could tell, he was actually managing NOT to be the exemplary WP:Dick that he usually is, but as Shane would say "it's a brand". Badmintonhist (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Report me to whom,[sic] and for what exactly?" Do you realize that that is an improper use of a comma?  I can be an ass also; the difference is that I choose not to be.  It is probably time you stopped being so pedantic.  Arzel (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your grammatical errors and misunderstanding of grammatical syntax aren't really the point, Arzel (though you didn't really answer the question). Of more importance is the tale of two Arzels, which you've bypassed completely.  Don't make objections based on WP:WEIGHT if you're not willing to recess those objections when a half-dozen sources are provided -- either go ahead and say "I won't change my mind no matter what" (which would make you a POV warrior), or be willing to reconsider when evidence contrary to your position is presented.  In any case, the more often this occurs the easier it is to conclude that you simply don't operate in good faith.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to provide a couple of diffs showing where you have changed your mind Blax? I often see you throw out the "POV warrior" tag, while pretending your own POV's play no part in your edits or the articles you select to make your stands in. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Arzel. Hope you're in good health and good spirits. I thought you might be amused by revisiting subtopic #90 above on your talk page ("It's Ok it's trivial") and then going to subtopic #51 ("Pathetic") on my talk page. It goes back to when you misspelled my name in a routine edit summary then apologized for it. What I was referring to when I said "were I Blaxthos it might be different" was precisely his habit of "sicing" meaningless misspellings on things like edit summaries and talk page comments. Notice his reaction to my comment. It's priceless. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes great spirits. Have a great day.  Arzel (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elizabeth Kucinich
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Elizabeth Kucinich. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party
If we just left it at "center-left," would that be all-right with you? Center-left is what I proposed originally actually. I think this is the best compromise in light of our differences. The Republicans are called center-right in their article; the Dems can be center-left in theirs. UBER ( talk ) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "center-left", I agree that they are. I don't think I ever removed that terminology from the lead, and if I did it was not intentional.  Arzel (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done then. UBER  ( talk ) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really don't think this should really be much of an issue, but I think I jumped into a larger dispute with TFD that you may have been having.  Arzel (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Ok so then I guess this is the new working consensus and we'll try to address other concerns and complaints as they come along. Nice working with you. UBER  ( talk ) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For your review...
Per our discussions on a relevant topic, I thought these articles might be of interest to you: WaPo & Gawker opinion. I'm hoping the WaPo ombudsman follows through on the push for additional reporting, and I'm requesting restraint on the editwar front in the meantime. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we can throw restraint to the wind and reinsert the content without consensus simply because it is sourced. I'll give your method a try for a while. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Those Who Trespass
I find it hard to make sense of your complaints about missing sources here and here. From a sentence of the form "In his book X, Y said Z", it should be obvious what the source for the statement Z is. If you are removing the sentence for other reasons (e.g. being politically opposed to Y or disagreeing with Z), just say so openly.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests
Thanks for your bold and thoughtful contributions to this article. Freedom Fan (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that article... if you have a problem comprehending an edit summary, please feel free to ask me for a further explanation. Executing a revert that inserts unsourced content, errors, and removes sourced content, just because you don't like an edit summary isn't good practice. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself. Misrepresentation of the edit summary as "routine per talk" when you clearly don't have the standing to make such a remark is not very civil.  Stop pushing your biased point of view.  Arzel (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to explain that a little more clearly. "Don't have the standing to make such a remark?"  What is that supposed to mean?  I have been routinely reverting Freedom Fan's POV edits, and have on several occasions explained my edits on talk.  Something FF has yet to do.  Please don't edit war. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, we would welcome your opinion regarding a request to remove the 'Reports of Inappropriate Incidents' Section until a consensus is reached. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arzel. With regard to my edit summary: (npov; replaced content removed without explanation; please use the talk page)  -- the summary is 100% accurate, and perfectly civil. I did make NPOV edits, and I did return some content that was removed without explanation. As you have noticed, I had also returned the "monkey god" content to the article, and have commented further about that edit on the article talk page. You may wish to exercise a little more caution when mischaracterizing edits or editors in edit summaries. You can't go back and fix an edit summary like you can with comments on a talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you should use more caution when making edits. You were clearly in the wrong and your refusal to acknowledge the issue does not improve the situation.  Arzel (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not incapable of making mistakes, but your opinion that I was "clearly" in the wrong is not clear to me. As I noted above, my edit summary was accurate.  Care to explain where I was "in the wrong"?  If not, that in itself will suffice as an answer. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the stuff you put back in with that edit was stuff I took out with comments and by explaining why I took it out on the talk page. Therefore you edit summary is not correct.  You even acknowledge that you put the "monkey god" section back in, and have commented on the talk page, so even if you didn't see my edit summary with comments, you obviously knew that I had also brought it up on talk.  Arzel (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page. Thank you, AGK   13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've stayed out of this one. Maybe this sources will help in the article. It has a couple of good quotes: Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please indicate whether you agree to the mediation at request page. You are the only party that has not chimed in on the issue yet.  Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage
See User_talk:EyeSerene; I realise you've been here a while and will already be aware of much of what I've written, so apologies for the general nature of my response. EyeSerene talk 18:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Opening statement for Media Matters mediation
If possible could you soon submit your opening statement for the above mentioned mediation? I'm leaving on vacation in a couple of days and would like to say a few things before I go, but am waiting for all the opening statements to be made. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a spot for you right on the mediation page's talk page, Arzel. 300 to 400 words if possible. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please put it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Media_Matters_for_America#Opening_statement_by_Arzel Drrll (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight.com
Do you believe the "liberal-leaning" label should be removed from the lede in FiveThirtyEight.com? Why or why not? Ubiq (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the tone should be similar to the RCP article. Arzel (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tone should be similar, since they are very similar websites.


 * However, I very distinctly remember many of your arguments on why we shouldn't just arbitrarily label something "conservative" or "liberal" as if it's undisputed fact. That's why I'm confused on your addition of that label to the very first line of FiveThirtyEight.com. It seems to me that's one of the last things you would do considering how many times you removed the "conservative" label from RealClearPolitics.


 * I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from here. I just don't see the basis from which one would outright declare 538's blog liberal-leaning, yet fight incessantly to remove the conservative label from RCP's name. I hope you can forgive my reiteration on this, but my preference in regards to both of these articles (and others about news sources and the like that hit upon political issues) is that these labels need to be preceded with "described as", "observed as", or similar language in the event that the site/newspaper/whatever does not declare any political affiliation. Pretty simple reasoning here; it's far less debatable that a comedian is described as funny than that a comedian is funny. I'm hoping you'll see my logic here. Ubiq (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. The RCP lede has been modified by a few people since then, tweaking the phrasing of conservative, I have been largely absent from any modifications of the RCP lede or the 538 lede.  That said, I agree that 538.com should probably be tweaked in a similar manner.  If you have some suggestions for toning down the 538 article, by all means proceed.  The initial compromise between the two was largely based on a balance.  I personally have not had much time to work on various articles, save a couple that have been taking up an inordinate amount of my time.  Arzel (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear you on the lack of time thing. The statement on the 538 article could probably stand to stay in tact for now, although I'm thinking it might be a good idea to incorporate pieces of the article that is sourced for that particular statement to provide a more accurate, less debatable approach to describing their blog. I'll take a look at it and see what could work.


 * RCP article is undergoing an edit war over the usual again. I think some editors are misusing the quote from the conservative spotlight article. I'm starting to think the less mentions/hints/implications of political leanings in any given article, the better. Sadly, I think I'm in the minority with that view. Ubiq (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ..
for your good wishes. Looks like things might settle at the Media Matters mediation before I even leave. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Media Matters for America at WP:RS
Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries in Those Who Trespass
I tried to rewrite the part you objected to. If you still have concerns, I am happy to continue the discussion about the article's content on the article talk page. Here, I'd just like to say something about your edit summaries in that article, which I noted to be misleading several times - examples:
 * No Sources - the book was very clearly identified as the source.
 * 6 degrees of separation. This is a pretty weak link to a reception about the book - the quote from the Salon review you deleted, and the other reviews mentioned there, are very directly about the article's subject, as is Franken's comment.

See Help:Edit_summary: "Accurate summaries help other editors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change, and to understand it if they choose to check it."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your first link is from a long time ago. The second one (from today) is properly worded.  It was phrased as a roundabout way to link Franken to a review of the book through BOR.  The way you reworded it is better, but it still little more than a BOR specific issue.  I added back in the Hastings review, but limited it to the specifics of His opinion.  Let the so called "others" speak for themselves.  If they are notable opinions they should not be hard to find or source.  Arzel (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric
Hi, you seem like the only editor with common sense out of those involved in that farce. Can you please weigh in here? BTW I used the sources you mentioned on Couric's talk page, but their excuses just keep changing... Thanks in advance for your help. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FNC "Controversy" on DKOS
As an editor currently involved in the FNC Controversy RFC, I believe this post from DKOS warrants your consideration. This appears to be off-wiki canvassing and may warrant identification and notification within the RfC. (cross-posted to User talk:Blaxthos) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

News Crop. / Fox News / Controversies
Greetings. I respect what you're trying to accomplish with these articles, but edits like this don't help. Once you start going down the "FNC haters" path, the debate will degrade into name calling and finger pointing, and that won't help either side of the debate. Please comment on content, don't comment on editors. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Akerans (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I toned it down, but it is annoying that a website is being used to try and dictate what should be included. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. But, not much we can do about that. I think our best response is keep cool and tell them to keep their feet off the furniture. Err, rather explain how we do things around here. Cheers. Akerans (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News...
Hi and thanks for cleaning that up. As a side note, the links werent dead, the new editor seems to have mangled them (they were checked, then copied and pasted from another article). Sorry about that, didnt think to check the links twice. It seems that the url is being mangled with the description in some of them (such as somelink.htmlJohn Says Fox is Biased). Also, didnt intend to put either of the two FOX links as their critics. Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arzel attempts at removing my contribution and banning me resolved as per HIS OBJECTION
''' There you go. Its all sourced which removes YOUR reason for trying to delete my additions and get me banned. Unless, of course you are just trying to censor this page and ban me because for political reasons. 98.223.23.207 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)'''

Again
Again, could you presume good faith, and move the discussion to my talk page at "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous"?69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm loggged, in. Like that will make difference, but now I'm asking: please?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will make a difference and you won't incorrectly say I added puffery and honorifics, but, dude, hella sloppy on you, but not untypical.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK   21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Just added you. I knew I was forgetting someone. BS24 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Fox News Channel controversies. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of crap, so I am the only person to get blocked for reverting? If any of you supposed admins would look, I was one of the ONLY people discussing the issue on talk, and the current concensus is that it should not be included. Seriously, how did any of you get to be admins? It is clear none of you know understand WP policies sufficiently. Arzel (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to unblock you, as the article is now protected. I did do my research last night as well, but for whatever reason, I missed that PrBeacon was just as guilty. And you're right that's a bit unfair. Please however, do not continue to edit war; it's not OK from you or PrBeacon or anyone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still seem to be blocked. Did you unblock me?  Arzel (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still blocked and now PrBeacon is accusing me of COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm truly so sorry, I forgot to clear your autoblock. I've done so now; it should work. As for PrBeacon, let him be. Think of it as blind leading the blind (I'd say the same thing if he complained about attacks you made on him... so I'm not taking sides). If a tree falls in a forest... Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I try to ignore, but he/she seems intent on attacking me.  I truly believe he thinks I work for Fox News Channel.  Arzel (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree Edit Warring is not ok. If you will look back to July 14 and July 20, Virinditis changed the name of the article and made that lede change as well without any discussion.  I was unable to change the article name back, and the lede change was missed during a subsequent edit war about a different topic.  This was simply a fix to that previous undiscussed change, and we were now discussing it.  Arzel (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment got EC'd but posting it anyway. Arzel, while I agree that the block is, perhaps, discretionary, you may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, Prbeacon had placed an unsigned edit-war warning (I'll reserve comment on that particular edit) on your talk page which you removed.  As the article is now under FPP (and, IMHO, a fully justified admin action), my suggestion (FWIW) is to swallow hard so as to be available for the ensuing discussion.  My .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the .02. PrBeacon's "Warning" was in regards to the other discussion about what should be included in the summary of on the FNC parent article.  I deleted it because I had only made one edit to that section when he warned me.  Arzel (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed Schultz
i raised a question in the article talk page. could u pls look at it. -- Car Tick  00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)