User talk:2.177.205.239: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Response |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Out of common courtesy I will cover everything that you posted on my talk page because it is in so many different sections. I would have used your original IP but you seem to have changed it. First here is my response to your claims on the state bar page. I have been removing what has been vandalism by you. At the beginning when you started to add those things I suggested that you find reliable sources and that you move the criticism section to lower in the article. In response you didn't and you put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting your material again because you seemed to just revert it, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to your sources, your first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed by you as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. [2] Your final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, you take it out of context. You took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead you removed it. You are the one engaged in edit warring by continuously adding your unreliably sourced and out of context information and removing the additions I made which have reliable sources. Even the Slate article is totally out of context. Please stop adding those things to wikipedia. To your point on edit warring, technically you are doing the same thing because you reverted my addition of well sourced criticism section and then ignored my responses to your discussion and kept on reverting. Also it seems that you copied and pasted that warning from lower in the page as you can tell because it still has Callanecc's signature on it. To your point that I remove things from my talk page, I do. I removed that Russian IP's edits because all they were doing was copying and pasting warnings myself and other users had left them on their talk page and putting them onto mine. To your posts that you added on their that I deleted. I didn't delete any of the text posts you added concerning what you wanted to discuss. I deleted the vandalism warnings that you copied and pasted and the copyright thing you added. The copyright issue had already been dealt with weeks before with other registered editors over whether they qualified for copyright protection or not and they didn't but to a point and you can read that information on the image page if you wish. Then to your final point that you saw when you went on my user page. That bot determines vandalism as the number of edits that you make per hour from huggle. It doesn't necessarily mean that I vandalized, just that I edit a lot, which I do in the fight against vandalism. I will be deleting some of the warnings that you added to my page but none of the concerns you wrote out. The warnings are vandalism, the text is kind of important. [[User:SantiLak|SantiLak]] ([[User talk:SantiLak|talk]]) 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
Out of common courtesy I will cover everything that you posted on my talk page because it is in so many different sections. I would have used your original IP but you seem to have changed it. First here is my response to your claims on the state bar page. I have been removing what has been vandalism by you. At the beginning when you started to add those things I suggested that you find reliable sources and that you move the criticism section to lower in the article. In response you didn't and you put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting your material again because you seemed to just revert it, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to your sources, your first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed by you as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. [2] Your final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, you take it out of context. You took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead you removed it. You are the one engaged in edit warring by continuously adding your unreliably sourced and out of context information and removing the additions I made which have reliable sources. Even the Slate article is totally out of context. Please stop adding those things to wikipedia. To your point on edit warring, technically you are doing the same thing because you reverted my addition of well sourced criticism section and then ignored my responses to your discussion and kept on reverting. Also it seems that you copied and pasted that warning from lower in the page as you can tell because it still has Callanecc's signature on it. To your point that I remove things from my talk page, I do. I removed that Russian IP's edits because all they were doing was copying and pasting warnings myself and other users had left them on their talk page and putting them onto mine. To your posts that you added on their that I deleted. I didn't delete any of the text posts you added concerning what you wanted to discuss. I deleted the vandalism warnings that you copied and pasted and the copyright thing you added. The copyright issue had already been dealt with weeks before with other registered editors over whether they qualified for copyright protection or not and they didn't but to a point and you can read that information on the image page if you wish. Then to your final point that you saw when you went on my user page. That bot determines vandalism as the number of edits that you make per hour from huggle. It doesn't necessarily mean that I vandalized, just that I edit a lot, which I do in the fight against vandalism. I will be deleting some of the warnings that you added to my page but none of the concerns you wrote out. The warnings are vandalism, the text is kind of important. [[User:SantiLak|SantiLak]] ([[User talk:SantiLak|talk]]) 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
Responded on your talk page. But your Talk Page shows that you simply erased mine and others points for discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SantiLak&action=history ... Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/2.177.205.239|2.177.205.239]] ([[User talk:2.177.205.239#top|talk]]) 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== New Message == |
== New Message == |
||
Revision as of 23:29, 1 September 2014
Out of common courtesy I will cover everything that you posted on my talk page because it is in so many different sections. I would have used your original IP but you seem to have changed it. First here is my response to your claims on the state bar page. I have been removing what has been vandalism by you. At the beginning when you started to add those things I suggested that you find reliable sources and that you move the criticism section to lower in the article. In response you didn't and you put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting your material again because you seemed to just revert it, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to your sources, your first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed by you as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. [2] Your final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, you take it out of context. You took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead you removed it. You are the one engaged in edit warring by continuously adding your unreliably sourced and out of context information and removing the additions I made which have reliable sources. Even the Slate article is totally out of context. Please stop adding those things to wikipedia. To your point on edit warring, technically you are doing the same thing because you reverted my addition of well sourced criticism section and then ignored my responses to your discussion and kept on reverting. Also it seems that you copied and pasted that warning from lower in the page as you can tell because it still has Callanecc's signature on it. To your point that I remove things from my talk page, I do. I removed that Russian IP's edits because all they were doing was copying and pasting warnings myself and other users had left them on their talk page and putting them onto mine. To your posts that you added on their that I deleted. I didn't delete any of the text posts you added concerning what you wanted to discuss. I deleted the vandalism warnings that you copied and pasted and the copyright thing you added. The copyright issue had already been dealt with weeks before with other registered editors over whether they qualified for copyright protection or not and they didn't but to a point and you can read that information on the image page if you wish. Then to your final point that you saw when you went on my user page. That bot determines vandalism as the number of edits that you make per hour from huggle. It doesn't necessarily mean that I vandalized, just that I edit a lot, which I do in the fight against vandalism. I will be deleting some of the warnings that you added to my page but none of the concerns you wrote out. The warnings are vandalism, the text is kind of important. SantiLak (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. But your Talk Page shows that you simply erased mine and others points for discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SantiLak&action=history ... Thanks. 2.177.205.239 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
New Message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your New Reversion
In case you were interested in discussing any of the things you have added to my talk page you can check there or here or on the article page. I won't revert your edits now because it technically is edit warring. Obviously you are also guilty of it because as you said "Even if you think you are right" you can't edit war. This is almost the tenth time that I have responded to all of your claims. Why don't you try and discuss it instead of making claims that I have never tried which are totally false. Every since this has started I have tried to discuss it. SantiLak (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
New Message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.