User talk:217.30.115.210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, please do not remove material added in good faith without giving reasons (either in the form of an edit summary or on the associated talk page), and please also see WP:COI concerning possible conflict of interest. Thank you. Viewfinder 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please state the neutral point of view that is established by incorporating the link on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.115.210 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts using four tildes as instructed, and take the matter to Talk:Law Society of Scotland. Viewfinder 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you are editing without using edit summaries or explaining your edits. You may be the Law Society of Scotland, but you do not own the Law Society of Scotland page and your edits are subject to the same rules and guidelines as those of any other editor. Many Wikipedia pages contain links to material critical of their subjects, or to other pages containing such links. Deleting them is censorship. Please see WP:COI about conflict of interest, and WP:ES#Recommendations about edit summaries, then discuss the disputed content at Talk:Law Society of Scotland. Thank you. Viewfinder 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will continue this game of Whac-a-mole for as long as it takes. Viewfinder 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please can we discuss this content dispute at Talk:Law Society of Scotland. Removal of material without explanation smacks of totalitarianism. Viewfinder 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to edit the article without summarising your edits or explaining them at the above mentioned talk page? Until you do, I will continue to revert them. Viewfinder 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Viewfinder is completely correct and your continued, unexplained removal of material from the article can only be considered vandalism. Please explain on the article's talk page what this is all about. Francis Davey (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of censoring the article as though you owned it, why not contribute to it constuctively? It seems to me that the logical extension of insisting on the deletion of the SACL link would be deletion of the Wikipedia#Criticism section. Viewfinder (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)