User talk:Rhino7628

Media Research Center should be labeled as a liberal media criticism organization since they are criticizing liberal outlets. It doesn't make sense to say they are "conservative media criticism" since they don't criticize conservatives.

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 that gains a consensus among editors. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than one to keep an edit war going. Since this keeps going back and forth, we need an honest compromise. To compromise, will move conservative label into following paragraph directly from mission statement of MRC. Please discuss in talk page.

Please stop edit warring
You've been asked many times already but keep ignoring these requests. In your recent revert of me in the FAIR article you say to me "There are about 20 who disagree with you" but so far I only see you. Who are the other 19 exactly? Making up pretend editors who agree with your POV is not going to convince anyone. I suggest you drop this dispute, because if you do not you are probably going to end up being blocked for 3RR violations (more than likely both you and the anon IP you appear to also edit from). Consider this another warning along the lines of Gamaliel's above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A simple clicking on the revision history results in numerous users who wanted to remove conservative from the opening sentence. I don't think going through the exercise of listing them is necessary since the history page is an accurate listing in itself.

Please discuss in edit page without reverting my edits. I am not reverting edits, but rather adding information to the article. If you don't like it, please discuss before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs)
 * I have discussed it, repeatedly, and actually more than you have (apparently only people who revert you need to discuss it, you do not need to discuss your changes or even provide an edit summary as for example here). You are not "adding information," you are adding in a label with which several others disagree (on the FAIR article). Every time you "undo" another's edit you are reverting them--whether you are adding or deleting content is irrelevant as reversion is defined as undoing the actions of another editor in whole or in part. I hope that clears it up a bit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please suggest compromise as discussed on discussion page of article.