This user enjoys the back-and-forth discussions among Wikipedia editors. Please use this page to communicate with him.

Please don't remove the tags indicating the bias and corruption in the O'Reilly article. See talk page. Fluterst 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the mean time, I have requested for moderator arbitration. Please stop editing the article in the mean time. Additionally, you have no authority to add moderator warnings to my Talk page. --Ilyag 07:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. Is there a rule that suggests I cannot edit the article. Please point me to it, if there is. I did not add a moderator warning, I added the only vandalism warning I could find, which I think is appropriate from what I've read. I didn't make the charge of vandalism lightly, nor do I withdraw it. Fluterst 08:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit your article provided that there is concensus. If your edits aren't questioned, you can assume you have it. Or, if someone questions your edits (as is the case with the Bill O'Reilly article), you must build concensus in the Talk pages before your edits are allowed by the rest of the editing community. If no concensus is reached, what will happen is exactly what you're seeing happen: You make edits, and someone reverts them, over and over and over again. This is clearly not how Wikipedia is meant to function. --Ilyag 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "consensus" has created an article full of unsourced and libellous claims against O'Reilly that is written from an obviously left-wing perspective desperate to characterize O'Reilly as a right-winger. This is not clearly not how anything holding itself out as an encyclopedia is meant to function. Fluterst 08:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC) In future if you wish to respond, please do so on my talk page as I won't be checking back in. Fluterst 08:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some sort of justification for removing the entire section discussing criticism of O'Reilly by Keith Olbermann? The section seemed somewhat POV but the information didn't seem unworthy of inclusion. Please leave a note on the article talk page and justify the removal or I'm going to give it a little re-write to maintain NPOV and consider re-adding it. --ABQCat 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Keith_Olberman

Thank you. On reading your rationale for removing the section, you've actually convinced me. The information probably *is* far more apropriate for an Olberman article than for the O'Reilly article. I appreciate your quick response! Keep up the good work! --ABQCat 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add some diffs to your statement to back up some of your claims please? Cheers. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Please check out my comment in the discussion section of the BSG article. (Revised series)