Talk:Alton H. Maddox Jr.: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Considering that you have not only removed ''all cited information'' from this article, but have repeated that same act of removal no less than eight times, it seems quite hypocritical for you to complain that edits by people other than yourself removed information, especially when the information was restored, in more detail than before, in less than half an hour. Of course, the "good faith" explanation would be that you didn't actually ''look'' closely enough at the edits you were relentlessly reverting to see that they in fact had ''incorporated'' everything that you actually offered for the improvement of the article. That's an explanation which assumes good faith, but it's not necessarily to your credit. -- [[Special:Contributions/209.6.177.176|209.6.177.176]] ([[User talk:209.6.177.176|talk]]) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
:Considering that you have not only removed ''all cited information'' from this article, but have repeated that same act of removal no less than eight times, it seems quite hypocritical for you to complain that edits by people other than yourself removed information, especially when the information was restored, in more detail than before, in less than half an hour. Of course, the "good faith" explanation would be that you didn't actually ''look'' closely enough at the edits you were relentlessly reverting to see that they in fact had ''incorporated'' everything that you actually offered for the improvement of the article. That's an explanation which assumes good faith, but it's not necessarily to your credit. -- [[Special:Contributions/209.6.177.176|209.6.177.176]] ([[User talk:209.6.177.176|talk]]) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I was not aware that the length of time the content mentioned had disappeared was in any way significant, and your estimate is somewhat inaccurate. Also, your improvised justification manages to ignore the fact that it was *I*, and not another editor who had to restore the missing info; had I not it likely would have been left out longer. Furthermore, if you had bothered to look at the recent edits, you'd find that the version that was continually restored from mine actually left Mason’s disbarment, an fact which is surely not to one's credit, to borrow your clichéd phrase, and one that I willingly re-inserted. But, to borrow another overused expression, one would have to assume good faith to realize that. |
|||
Revision as of 16:47, 8 January 2008
 | Biography Stub‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Protection
Due to the slow but steady revert war going on I have protected this page for a couple of days. Please can we settle issues on this talkpage. Pedro : Chat 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could use a rewrite as Maddox represented several clients but only Brawley is given much notice and recent edits actually REMOVED one of his other clients. A section more biographical will be inserted once page is unlocked. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- By "recent edits actually REMOVED one of his other clients", are you referring to his representation of Michael Griffith? The only time I can see where Maddox's representation of the family of Michael Griffith was removed was for a period of approximately a half-hour. See, in this edit you removed almost all the information in the article and all the cited information from the article, erroneously calling it "vandalism", and leaving the article without even a wikilink to the article about Tawana Brawley. That massive removal of cited information was reverted in this edit and the same user within a half-hour added to the article the only information that your edits actually added to the article rather than removed, the fact that Maddox represented the family of Michael Griffith.
- Considering that you have not only removed all cited information from this article, but have repeated that same act of removal no less than eight times, it seems quite hypocritical for you to complain that edits by people other than yourself removed information, especially when the information was restored, in more detail than before, in less than half an hour. Of course, the "good faith" explanation would be that you didn't actually look closely enough at the edits you were relentlessly reverting to see that they in fact had incorporated everything that you actually offered for the improvement of the article. That's an explanation which assumes good faith, but it's not necessarily to your credit. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was not aware that the length of time the content mentioned had disappeared was in any way significant, and your estimate is somewhat inaccurate. Also, your improvised justification manages to ignore the fact that it was *I*, and not another editor who had to restore the missing info; had I not it likely would have been left out longer. Furthermore, if you had bothered to look at the recent edits, you'd find that the version that was continually restored from mine actually left Mason’s disbarment, an fact which is surely not to one's credit, to borrow your clichéd phrase, and one that I willingly re-inserted. But, to borrow another overused expression, one would have to assume good faith to realize that.