User talk:AlexJFox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
vn-1 This user talk page has been vandalized once.
I like this number nice and low.
Please don't add to it.

Totally Not Vandalism[edit]

Excuse me, what I wrote was arrantly valid! His playing techniques were sloppy/goofy. I find it difficult to reconcile that anyone would believe a "beer-enthusiast," or--in other words--a drunkard, as yourself! Good day!

Haha, mildly amusing - however please refrain from editing tests and please ensure you never ever add negative, unsourced or defamatory comment to an article, especially those that are about living persons! You can use your sandbox for editing tests but please remember you need to observe the rules in there too! Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 00:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

The papers have been filed and will be citable in less than 36 hours. Further, the subject is self-promoting on his own Wikipedia page and that is forbidden. Alex, you are removing factual data from a Wikipedia biographical page. That's not white hat. Should I bring others to this to remind you of Wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. You cannot and must not add any content that is unverifiable to an article about a living person, especially content that has legal ramifications. Citable in 36 hours is not citable now. It is obvious you are involved with the subject of the article in some way so you should also read WP:COI. Also be aware that the content you added had a strong bias against the subject of the article, contrary to WP:NEUTRAL. Thanks. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No bias. Perhaps you should read it again? But then oops, you deleted it. Once the papers are citable, I am contributing the entry again. If you remove it again, after the citation appears, Streisand photos will apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"This claim was despite numerous, repeated unsolicited requests made by Grant in writing to the woman that she accompany him on dates to The New York Metropolitan Opera, and despite numerous unsolicited requests authored by Grant and issued via email to the woman expressing desire to engage in personal bodily contact with her."
"Within days of denying her complaint, Carson then authored several libelous emails about the female director and issued the content to all other actors on her film in progress, encouraging them to leave the picture prematurely in order to damage the production."
These are but two examples of content that you added. This information is uncited and defamatory. That is why it was reverted. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You are not accurate. These are facts. The subject himself is being sued for defamation. Reporting factual information is not libel. Please explain also why you are permitting this subject to self-promote himself and author his own biographical content. If your corrections are themselves truly unbiased, you will have a proper explanation for this error. You also removed from this talk page my cite of the subject violating, and your allowing, WP:COI:6. Why is that, Alex? Wikipedia does not permit self-authored content on biographical pages and will remove these types of entries. However, you have reverted along with the removal of the lawsuit entry - which I will bow to for the next day or so, out of respect to the community - my corrections that, under Wiki community standards, were warranted. This makes you look like a cheerleader for this subject. Again, that is not white hat and may need to be referred upstairs in the community because it is an act of impartiality on your part that needs to be explained. Removing the lawsuit entry: fine. Reinstating biographical material that is uncited and authored by the subject in a self-promotional manner: not Wiki.
If these are facts, then you'll be able to find a reliable source for them. Also, I doubt you have read WP:BLP as I suggested. My involvement in this article started upon seeing your edits. I have no prior engagement with it. If there is a COI issue there, then it will be dealt with in time but two wrongs do not make a right. Again, you cannot add unsourced/defamatory content to an article about living persons. That is (for very good reason) one of the most strongly enforced policies on Wikipedia. I have reported you for the content added and the threats of re-addition of this content. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on Cydia[edit]

Hi! Since you're a member of WikiProject Apple's iOS task force, you might be interested in joining the current discussions at Talk:Cydia about sourcing and content issues - see the newest four sections on that page. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

-- Cheers, Riley 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on User talk:Ricardomm. Hope you edit more often, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

J.L. Richards Neutrality Banner[edit]

Hey Alex, thanks so much for giving me the 411 on James Lorin Richards. After reading all the guidelines, I spent a good deal of time deleting peacock type phrasing, etc, trying to keep the article as neutral as possible. When you have some time, could you please review it, and by all means delete or fix any more violations so I can get the banner removed? I know it's a tall order-it's a long article- but I've logged tons of hours trying to get this right. In some ways he was the "Warren Buffett" of his generation. THANKS! Jtlanghorne (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)