User talk:EricLeFevre

Welcome to wikipedia and sorry that I deleted your conribution to the Iranian election protests, but the Huffington Post is no reliable source in the sense wikipedia defines it. I'll keep an eye on whether this statement pops up in citeable context like the live blog of the Guardian. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
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. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there; I've volunteered to mediate a Mediation Cabal case with which you may be involved. Please read the mediator notes section on the case page or feel free to remove your name from the list of participants on said page. GrooveDog (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy sections
I was not aware of this change in policy. I apologize for my disruptive edits and thank you for your correction. JEN9841 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)
Hi, you've made 7 edits today to Joe Wilson (U.S. politician), and they all appear to be reverts. I presume you're aware of WP:3RR? This is an article in flux, so editing less and talking more is probably helpful. Rd232 talk 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You won't get very far relying on the BLP exemption to 3RR for the sort of reverts you're making. Rd232 talk 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Several times on this article you have removed material using an edit summary that claimed other editors were using the article to "attack" Wilson. You can disagree about the validity of particular material, but adding sourced, factual material to an article isn't an "attack", and it is insulting to your fellow editors to claim that's what they are doing. This sort of thing needs to stop immediately. Please have a look at WP:CIVIL if you haven't already and let me know if you have any questions about appropriate Wikipedia behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Racism is a very, very serious charge. Regardless of how well sourced it is (and the accusation is not well sourced at all, it was Jimmy Carter running his mouth with no evidence), those kind of charges violate the WP:BLP policy. I think it is notable that Barack Obama denies that this kind of opposition is racism.  I would also remind you that Op-Ed articles do not constitute a reliable source as wiki defines them.  While they can be used for a citation under certain circumstances, this is not one of them. EricLeFevre (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a serious charge. But your fellow editors are not making that charge, they are merely reporting the fact that Jimmy Carter made the charge.  It is important that you understand this difference and act accordingly.  If you disagree that Carter's charge should be in the article or feel that Obama's response to it belongs in the article, you are welcome to discuss that with your fellow editors.  It is not, however, acceptable for you to insult your fellow editors by claiming they are attacking Wilson by merely reporting factual events. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Douglas Coe
If the name of the organization is The Fellowship, why is the name of the article The Family? One or the other needs to be changed. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ). Glass  Cobra  22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion about Joe Wilson
Hi there, last month you were involved in the debate surrounding Joe Wilson's page. I have just posted a lengthy explanation of why Jimmy Carter was probably misquoted and for BLP reasons the "racism" charge does not belong in the "Outburst" section. I'd like to invite you to read through it if you have time and weigh in on the subject. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia
It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)