I am supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt, and the fact that you sent me a message makes that easier.  What makes it harder, though, are two things:  that you reverted *all* my edits, and your misguided appeal to the non-standard-English and very unfortunate Wiki creation, "weasel words." 

 Weasel words is a real abuse of the English language and Wiki should *never* have gone down that unfortunate road.  Yucch!  Still, the Wiki definition does not support what you said and did, you have twisted their sloppy definition as a means to leave the article about conservative extremist Bill O'Reilly in its misleading and confusing form  maybe he's not conservative.   If Ted Kennedy like to describe himself as not a liberal (and there is a *whole lot* of that kind of silly posturing in the world), would it be worth much consideration?  Rejecting clarification, though, you seem to prefer to follow your misinterpretation of "weasel words" to keep the article unclear.  

 I'm not going to waste my time getting into a food fight with you; I've already gone down that trail of tears with someone who reverted everything to preserve propaganda, and life is much too short to repeat that.  I have never had the experience, though, where someone reverted *everything* I had written and was acting in good faith, never.  And the failed would-be neologism "weasel words" is a particular red flag for me that someone may be playing games.  But I'm supposed to assume good faith on your part and I can do that in sincerity:  maybe you really believe this was right. 

 You don't have the same luxury, though:  ask yourself what was really going on here, and how it is better to have an article that misinforms.  Thank you, and good luck.