Antisoapbox

Friendly caution

Hi! As far as I can see, the section you're removing from Weil, Gotshal & Manges is confirmed by reliable sources? If that's not the case, you can explain your reasons at Talk:Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and get consensus from other users that the best version of this article wouldn't include that section. However, you'll need to stop leaving personal attacks against User:Knowsetfree, since that does not accomplish anything except a possible block for yourself. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard for being included in Wiki is not simply that it "be confirmed by a reliable source". The deletions have their reasons in the log of the deletions for all to see. Antisoapbox (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, there is a little more to inclusion than verification, though that's the most important standard. So if you'd like to discuss, on the article's talk page, why Wikipedia's policies require the paragraphs to be removed, and gain the consensus of other users, you are welcome to do so. WP:SOAPBOX doesn't appear to apply in this case, in my opinion, but you're welcome to explain yourself more thoroughly at the article talk page. If you think you'd like more objective editors to review the disagreement, WP:DISPUTE has a variety of suggestions for how to move forward in an editing dispute while still following the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi fishergueen, new users may not know it, but there is MUCH more to inclusion than verification. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT Knowsetfree is free to have more objective editors review his/her submission of old immaterial allegations against companies. It is pretty clear to me and others that these sections violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, WP: SOAP also out of date and generally not encyclopedia worthy. Also his allegations of vandalism show an ignorance of what vandalism is so I have tried to point him in the right direction with cites to policy pages so that he may learn what the rules are. Antisoapbox (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Antisoapbox, Sorry to say that I'm going to have to agree with FisherQueen that your edits may be problematic. But it is even worse than FisherQueen may have been aware. We have over half a dozen attempts at censoring the misconduct section, followed by reverts, usually by Anons. First, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were somehow unaware of the recurring issues. But then I saw that you commented on my talk page, and added a comment at the bottom welcoming me to the world of Wikipedia. I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity because you ignored the extensive Talk history. You can read about the extensive history, often by Anons, of deleting the very same unflattering content about the law firm Weil Gotshal in a number of instances including:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knowsetfree#Weil.2C_Gotshal_.26_Manges
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knowsetfree#Weil.2C_Gotshal_.26_Manges_edits_Holiday.27s_2007
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knowsetfree#Anonymous_Vandalism_to_Weil.2C_Gotshal_.26_Manges_article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knowsetfree#Misleading_and_unethical_entry_to_Weil_Gotshal_article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knowsetfree#As_in_deep_sea_fishing:_we_got_.22One_On.22_in_re_Weil_Gotshal_vandalism

And this includes reverts to edits also labeled as vandalism by other editors such as Spitfire8520 and ButtonwoodTree. --Knowsetfree (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Knowsetfree, what is the wiki policy that you are citing? I don't see any relevance to recounting the years old history of talk pages. Is there a specific wiki policy that you are applying and that makes years old revision history relevant? I don't know if old history is relevant. For instance is the old history that your many of your category creations were deleted because they violated wiki policies?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_5#Category:Lawyers_.26_Law_Firms_Found_Guilty_of_Legal_Misconduct

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_5#Category:Entities_or_Persons_committing_SEC_Violations

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_5#Category:Private_Equity_.26_Hedge_Funds_with_financial_ties_to_politicians

Is this old history relevant too? Some good wiki policies that I believe actually are relevant are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, WP: SOAP, WP:VAN, and WP:NOTVAND. Antisoapbox (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Homeopathy

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://mta.hu/data/EASAC_Homepathy_statement_web_final_2.pdf. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, Welcome to Wikipedia. You may consider learning about fair use: "Around 10% of Wikipedia pages in English have some form of fair use content—that’s over 500,000 articles quoting from a book or an article;" Says the GC of Wikemedia Foundaiton anyway. Stephen LaPorte, Senior Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

References

Courtesy notice - Contentious topics - Fringe theories

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Hipal (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, Welcome to Wikipedia. I will add you to my list of people that I will check in on as the maintstream position of academics is reflected in the more slow moving associations that you seem to be blinded by. But thanks for attempting, and failing, to contribute anything useful or marshall any facts or evidence in your favor. Antisoapbox (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and may lead to a block or ban.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)