| Revision as of 19:05, 7 July 2006 editLastexit (talk | contribs)154 edits response← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:06, 7 July 2006 edit undoLastexit (talk | contribs)154 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| As you know, only in cases of blatant vandalism should contributions be removed in their entirety. I've included numerous citations relating to a circumstance at which Gary Weiss, the subject of the article, was at the center. It was a billion-dollar lawsuit which tested the limits of the law in the digital age. An objective observer might just say it has a place in the article. If you disagree with the facts of the case, as is your right, then please make the corresponding edits. Removing them outright is a breach of Misplaced Pages protocol, and thus you've given me no choice but to escalate this matter for further review. ] 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | As you know, only in cases of blatant vandalism should contributions be removed in their entirety. I've included numerous citations relating to a circumstance at which Gary Weiss, the subject of the article, was at the center. It was a billion-dollar lawsuit which tested the limits of the law in the digital age. An objective observer might just say it has a place in the article. If you disagree with the facts of the case, as is your right, then please make the corresponding edits. Removing them outright is a breach of Misplaced Pages protocol, and thus you've given me no choice but to escalate this matter for further review. ] 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :With all due respect, a new editor |
:With all due respect, a new editor whose first contribution is to insert a libelous accusation against a living person and a Wiki editor, all in one edit, is in no position to talk about "breaches of Misplaced Pages protocol." Your effort to add libelous message board chatter to an article was just plain vandalism and it was properly deleted. The lengthy section you want to insert in the article on the Julian Robertson article is also libelous and inaccurate. You want to place a lengthy rant on a dropped lawsuit that created no legal precedent and at most deserves possibly one sentence. I'm familiar with that lawsuit and with Julian Robertson. | ||
| :The reason you are being addressed so harshly, at least by myself, is you are focused on one article and have made bad faith edits that are pushing an agenda. For that reason the usual assumption of good faith does not apply.--] 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | :The reason you are being addressed so harshly, at least by myself, is you are focused on one article and have made bad faith edits that are pushing an agenda. For that reason the usual assumption of good faith does not apply.--] 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:06, 7 July 2006
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Mantanmoreland 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not deface articles by adding nonsensical accusations against Wiki editors and lengthy, unsourced diatribes. In your approximately first twenty minutes of existence on Misplaced Pages you have violated two serious Misplaced Pages policies. This is not a Usenet message board. Please edit constructively.--Mantanmoreland 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is now my third warning to you in your approximately eight-hour career as a Misplaced Pages editor.
- Do not push your personal animus toward Weiss, made fairly plain by your bizarre and libelous accusations now deleted, in which you accused myself to be a sockpuppet of Weiss. You now have added an entire section mischaracterizing a libel suit that was dropped and did not create "precendent," and falsely accuse the underlying article of being "inaccurate." You apparently joined Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of carrying out an agenda concerning Weiss. Please desist. If you continue to make further bad-faith edits for the purpose of disrupting Misplaced Pages and furthering your agenda, you will be blocked.--Mantanmoreland 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If I were you I would take Mantanmoreland's warnings seriously. Adding unsourced, potentially libelous materials concerning a living person is a grave transgression. Such additions can be reverted without regard to the three-revert rule. The "three revert rule" requires that editors not make more than three reverts to an article within a 24-hour period. See WP:3RR.--Lastexit 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As you know, only in cases of blatant vandalism should contributions be removed in their entirety. I've included numerous citations relating to a circumstance at which Gary Weiss, the subject of the article, was at the center. It was a billion-dollar lawsuit which tested the limits of the law in the digital age. An objective observer might just say it has a place in the article. If you disagree with the facts of the case, as is your right, then please make the corresponding edits. Removing them outright is a breach of Misplaced Pages protocol, and thus you've given me no choice but to escalate this matter for further review. Let the truth be told. 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, a new editor whose first contribution is to insert a libelous accusation against a living person and a Wiki editor, all in one edit, is in no position to talk about "breaches of Misplaced Pages protocol." Your effort to add libelous message board chatter to an article was just plain vandalism and it was properly deleted. The lengthy section you want to insert in the article on the Julian Robertson article is also libelous and inaccurate. You want to place a lengthy rant on a dropped lawsuit that created no legal precedent and at most deserves possibly one sentence. I'm familiar with that lawsuit and with Julian Robertson.
- The reason you are being addressed so harshly, at least by myself, is you are focused on one article and have made bad faith edits that are pushing an agenda. For that reason the usual assumption of good faith does not apply.--Lastexit 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)