Jump to content

User talk:Onerher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Onererhim...go back to your 'esai morales' fan club work on HIS page and worship his picture and add rumors about his rumors...

Citations for Glora Allred are published...REF/MSN Have a nice day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onerher (talkcontribs)

Please stop with the fan club shit. I'm just here trying to help make a better encyclopedia. You are removing cited quotations, and adding uncited opinions. Saying they are "published" doesn't work. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE. I don't know how many times I've already told you that, but it's getting old. --OnoremDil 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last try at discussion

[edit]

Please explain your edits, because they don't appear to make sense to me.
Material needs to be cited. Positive and negative material can remain in articles as long as it is cited.
You are removing cited material from the Gloria Allred article.
You are adding uncited material to the Esai Morales and Lourdes Portillo articles.
You are reinserting parts of the Gloria Allred article that you previously were trying to remove.
You are making all of these edits without edit summaries or discussion, despite my repeated attempts to figure out why.
I now have to assume you are just reverting edits because I made them, and not based on what the edits actually are.
I won't revert again for now, but I will soon unless there is a response. Please reply here or on my talk page. --OnoremDil 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to mediation?

[edit]

Since you seem to believe that I'm not impartial, would you be willing to agree to mediation on the Esai Morales, Lourdes Portillo, and Gloria Allred articles? They won't try to help out unless both of us agree to it. --OnoremDil 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion has been requested

[edit]

I have requested a 3rd opinion. Your continued removal of cited material and addition of unsourced opinions without any discussion is completely unacceptable. I would call it vandalism, but I think it is more likely ignorance of policy. I'm really not sure though, since I've linked numerous times to the relevant policies... --OnoremDil 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]