User talk:Ilena: Difference between revisions
→3RR Warning: comment - I don't care about Barrett. I care about Wikipedia. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== December 26, 2006 == |
|||
I see things differently from my critics here. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. [http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/][[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Experiences on Wikipedia == |
== Experiences on Wikipedia == |
||
For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: [http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=c7592398da519e7b70e47d3G06121616] |
For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: [http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=c7592398da519e7b70e47d3G06121616] |
||
Revision as of 05:07, 27 December 2006
 Archives |
|---|
December 26, 2006
I see things differently from my critics here. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. [1]Ilena 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Experiences on Wikipedia
For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: [2]
- For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs.
I presume you are referring to me? Please confirm. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ilena 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin noticeboard post
I've posted to the admin noticeboard asking for a community review of your edits and continued disruptive editing. This is a courtesy notification. MastCell 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I posted this on this page and it was removed here and on the NCAHF page. I am reinstating it and do not appreciate your attempts to rewrite history and archive your complaints and remove my comments. This has gone on since I exposed NCAHF for not having any apparent legal corporation.
What was removed:
- Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
External links
Please do not revert removal of links to your own site. Per an arbitration committee ruling, links to sites which include attacks on Wikipedia editors may be removed on sight. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
3RR Warning
Please note you're close to violating WP:3RR with your edits to Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Whoever is removing my links is in the wrong. Pure and utter censorship. Ilena 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cross posted from Talk:Stephen Barrett:
- No, it is enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you'd stop warring and spouting accusations of vandalism and bias long enough to learn what the rules are and which you are violating, you might become a good contributor. As it is, you are being disruptive, argumentative, hostile, and generally a pain. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I am an administrator, and would be happy to help you learn the ropes and rules. Why are you rebuffing every attempt to help you and attacking or ignoring those trying to assist? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I don't work for Barrett. I don't know Barrett. In fact, I don't care about Barrett. The world is not divided into Barrett henchmen and those who support you - really, truly it is not. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)