RyanMacDonald

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Rodney MacDonald. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Rodney MacDonald. Thank you. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. All info has proper references. Changing you user name will not make you immune you from vandalism warnings, and possble blocking. Interesting, some of the previous valid info deletes are from an IP address within Rodney MacDonald's Premiers office. I wonder if the local medi would be interestdd in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanMacDonald13:43, 10 January 2009 (talk • contribs)

Actually none of it has proper references. Most of the links you have added have little if anything to do with Rodney MacDonald and if they do you need to specify which source supports what claims. I am not sure what you are talking about changing usernames, Today when I reverted you the first time was the first time I had ever seen this article. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rodney MacDonald. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the warning, as I believe you are attempting to restore this material in good faith. But assembling a list of "blunders" violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. You need to revise your submission so it conforms with the policy. Start by seeking the input of other editors on the article's talk page. Your additions must be neutral and verifiable. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rodney MacDonald article

I don't doubt that there is some well sourced criticism that might belong in the article. I do think that some of what you've added doesn't belong, that some of your sources are nowhere near good enough for a WP:BLP, and that the way you're going about it only hurts your position. Edit warring and socking are just going to lead to blocks and quick reverts. I'm not sure how much time I have to look into it today, but I'll try to look into it. --Onorem♠Dil 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)