User talk:Pajamaparty

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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 which gains a consensus among editors.

The source does not comply with WP:RS. Additionally, there is a possible WP:BLP concern. Please do not add the information again without a better source. · jersyko   talk  17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerseyko is the one imposing an edit war. The source speaks for itself and is in fact well documented. Jerseyko is reversing because of ideological difference not style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pajamaparty (talk • contribs).


 * Additionally, please assume good faith from fellow editors. I reverted the edit with clear reference to two required policies; it had nothing to do with bias. ·  jersyko   talk  17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, an edit war is an edit war, regardless of the nature of it. (The only exception is cleaning up obvious vandalism.) Once an edit has been reverted—especially more than once—the better course of action is to discuss the change on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that should go both way! Pajamaparty

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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 which gains a consensus among editors.

The source does not comply with WP:RS. Additionally, there is a possible WP:BLP concern. Please do not add the information again without a better source. '''· --Eleemosynary 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is a legitimate one. Is the New Republic more legitimate than the Weekly Standard? They are similar publications. You have violated the three revert rule. You should not have reversed that entry without putting it up for a vote. You are violating NPOV. --Pajamaparty.


 * Wrong on all counts. You appear to have no idea whatsoever how Wikipedia works.  --Eleemosynary 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary is wrong on Wikipedia's policy regarding sources, and in his disruptive, unprofessional behavior. WP policy on blogs for sources:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Michael Goldfarb fits the criteria of an acceptable source as a journalist for Weekly Standard, even if this particular article was merely published on the Weekly Standard Blog.

Pajamaparty, you have every right to ask for another administrator regarding Eleemosynary's behavior. He has been blocked for 3-reverts as well as disruptive behavior on several occasions. If he is truly an administrator, someone should review the troubled history on his talk page.A.V. 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Eleemosynary is not, and never has been an administrator at Wikipedia. - Crockspot 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)