User talk:Pointoflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from James Philip. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Philip. 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. 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. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And your Bio, is in violation of WP:BLP and other wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons. Further more, the Three r rule would not apply, according to your wikipeidia policy regarding WP:BLP.Pointoflight (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Hi, you've been reverting a lot at James Philip, and may already have violated 3RR. 3RR does not apply to clear BLP violations, but this is very borderline because most of the material is properly sourced. It's more a matter of the presentation that is causing problems. Therefore, please discuss on the talk page how that section can be better written, or whether it needs to be in the article at all, but if you keep blanking it, you do risk being blocked. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am happy you looked at this situation from a practical point of view. As long as the Bio conforms to "commonly held standards" of balance, fairness, and devoid of partisan hack sludge. Then, I will be happy.Pointoflight (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:James Philip

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:James Philip. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your minor alterations to your comments does not make them any more appropriate. Please refrain from speculating on the motives and personalities of other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, it's not the motives, it's the results of them motives. I can read, and I'm smart enough to see Smear campaign when its in front of me. Now I would suggest, you make sure the James Philip (a retired Republican office holder) don't be come a dump site of lies, fanciful speculations, guilt by association/Ad hominem attacks, Red herring fishing trips, and all purpose character assassination and ends up reading like huge democratic attack piece. see WP:ATP Pointoflight (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I consider your refactoring and reformatting my words on my talk page to be rude and abusive and you should stop it. I have seen the warnings and acknowledged them, now I will remove them.Pointoflight (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You can make your concerns about the article known to other editors without attacking them. Please try to refrain from doing so in the future, and please refrain from restoring your previous attacks that have been removed. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The following is NOT Personal attack on the Editors. It can be construed though to be an attack on the garbage that the editors are pushing, considering the editors are engaged in personal attack on Mr Philips... It's clear you don't know know the difference and you blunt force censorship is not conduciveness to fair and polite discourse. Removing the following below is blunt force censorship of the discussion at James Philips.Pointoflight (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments accuse other editors of being motivated by personal animus to destroy the reputation of the subject of the article. This is simply not how editors are expected to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. You can address your concerns towards other editors without attacking them and accusing them of misconduct. Do not add restore these comments again unless you omit the material directed at other users. Please read Wikipedia:Civility before you post to Talk:James Philip again and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You say. an editor who spew out this stuff, which the net effect to destroy the reputation of the subject, has no "personal animus". So, by your logic, I can shoot you in the head with a gun, and its ok, because I had no "Personal animus" to you.
Well, Thats a world not of our own.
NOW, let me tell you something... most of that "Garbage" that is being purposed on the James Philip bio, I will not be allow to go up. To make the James Philips a retired State Senator article longer then the Obama for president article, and one filled with hearsay and fanciful speculation, will not be tolerated. Since the standards for Obama (see talk on Tony Rezko) are different for a Republican like MR. Philip. I will not allow Wikikpeida and partisan axe grinding editors to destroy James Philips reputation.
Since, on you talk page Gamaliel is listed as a "supporter of the Democratic party" it would appear you have conflict of interest here. See WP:COIPointoflight (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy makes no sense. It's evident that you have strong feelings about this matter (which, by the logic of your last paragraph, would amount to a conflict of interest on your part as well), and I urge you to use that passion to improve Wikipedia articles without resorting to attacks on other editors. Thousands of editors every day manage to deal with problems in articles without resorting to baseless smears regarding the motives of other editors they should be working with collaboratively. There is no reason you can't do so as well, all you have to do is make the choice to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be getting the point. To put it bluntly, you can either discuss article content without speculating on the motives of other editors and making baseless accusations, or you won't be allowed to discuss article content with other editors. You are fond of quoting WP policy, so look at these before you post there again: WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:TALK. Gamaliel (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I do get the point, but I will make it simple so a young guy like your self understands... any additions to the James Philips bio which don't meet standards of Encyclopedic content I will remove. I will not play wiki games, bandy words or question the motives of other editors or any accusations of them being "Bias". No. I will just just simply remove, with out explanation, since you seem to like to remove my reasons for my actions. Also, I will fully expect any content, which contain fanciful speculation, unproven allegations and other nonsense, you will remove per your wiki policy and will not soil the bio James Philip so I don't have to do your job.

In closing, YOUR LEADER - JIMMY, had said this... I QUOTE...

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words.
 We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. 
–Jimmy Wales

Again quoting JIMMY

"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves
 is a horribly stupid thing to do."
–Jimmy Wales

Pointoflight (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dump Truck of Smear at James Philip Bio

What are you trying to do, place a garbage truck and dump all this old stuff down on this bio?... All of the partisan yellow journalism crap which newspapers like to engage in these days. All of this, over the years has resulted in NOTHING. Nothing. All of the speculations, which the press engaged has come of nothing. Can you cite when Pate was trialled, convicted, and sentenced by the courts? NO. Again, The stuff you cite is 5 years old or older and no actions by the state was ever taken against James Philip, personally? Well, what you have here is a technique is called "The BIG LIE" Just because you don't like the man, and just because you can cited tons of minutia don't make it true, right or meeting WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE WP:ATK In the end there seems the need of some editors here who has such hatred for this man to use such zeal to destroy Pate's reputation. See WP:TEND Why such hatred for this man?Pointoflight (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I have to warn you that if you post any more incivility about other editors, you're likely to be blocked without further warning. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 24 hours for posting more invective on Talk:James Philips. [1] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)