User talk:Publiusohio

June 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Birch Society. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to John Birch Society, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. After my earlier reversion you deliberately recreated an NPOV version Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Publiosohio,

I think you were very nicely prodded into discussing changes before actually making them, especially when dealing with a controversial topic. I do not want to see any editor banned, but in my opinion, you may be moving in that direction. I am going to revert your (rather massive) edit at John Birch Society, and encourage you to talk through the changes, some of which I think are likely either proper, or may need to be adjusted to be side-by-side with other edits.

Please keep in mind: this article is not the home page for the society. There may be views about the group that the group may not agree with, but factually exist, and those views are going to have to be a part of the article.

Best of luck with your editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

 Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing tags

Please don't remove editing tags, as you did here [1], without addressing the issues they flag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I reverted your re-write of the JBS article.[2] Please discuss the changes here: Talk:John Birch Society#Re-write. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 17 June 2008 (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, as you did to Robert M. Owens, you will be blocked from editing. Pinkadelica 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please review our editing policies, including our 3-revert rule before you resume editing. Do not remove maintenance templates from articles until other editors agree that the issues have been addressed, and use the article's talk page to discuss proposed changes and reversions. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to John Birch Society, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

John Birch Society

(This is a copy of my response to you on the talk page of that article)

Publiusohio, in order to add information (or remove sourced information) to an article such as this, where there are differences of opinion between editors as to whether or not the material is suitable, Wikipedia's policy is for the editors to come here to the talk page and discuss the proposed changes. During the discussion, agreement can develop as to the best course of action. References may be needed for new information, weighing of the relevance of the content can take place, and so on. If the editors immediately involved cannot come to agreement, then a Request for Comment can be made, which invites uninvolved editors to come and assist in the decision making. You are encouraged to participate in these conversations, and also to find reliable reference sources to support additions you would like to see in the article. I'll post a copy of this on your own talk page as well. Risker (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Birch Society. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours - John Birch Society

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Publiusohio, this is your second block for edit warring on the same article in two days. If you need help understanding our policies about reliable third party sources, please say so and other editors will work with you. This constant reverting to your preferred version of the article cannot continue, however. --Risker (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Birch Society. 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. Doug Weller (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

POV mediation

Hi there,

I'm a third party to John Birch Society and I would like to help both of you out. Please see [3]. Thank you! --mboverload@ 04:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to ACLU. You seem to be vandalizing the page, and clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach. Buddha24 (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC for John Birch Society Entry

Please see here [4] . --Hardindr (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)