User talk:Deaththrow
Hammer, there is clearly a problem when quotations from major newspaper articles are censored.
By what right are you doing so?
What do you have to fear from all sides of a controversial issue being aired?
You appear to be a stakeholder in some way. Why do you have so much animus about an event 15 years old?
Do you think people need your protection from Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and quotations from France 24 TV?
What exactly is your issue here?
Deaththrow (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not publish material that is copyrighted- the material you are adding is copied from other sources without attribution. In addition, it is not neutrally phrased, and so wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia even if you had written it yourself. Your questions are reasonable, if you aren't familiar with the rules yet, but you could phrase them more as if you are a new user interested in learning the rules, and less as if other users are trying to attack you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Jett. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Fisherqueen, please help me here. Who are you? Are you from Wikipedia? Are you an administrator?
Why are you saying that the content is not attributed when there are citations given showing the source.
Why when these same sources were used to say that the business Jett Capital Management LLC did not actual exist was it allowed and my efforts to correct apparently are not?
- I am looking at this edit, in which a large chunk of text that expresses a strong opinion is not identified as a quote, but simply added to the article. Are there facts in the article that are incorrect? Nothing you added seemed to have the effect of changing a sentence saying that this company did not exist to one that says it did. Your edit appears to only have the effect of adding opinions, not of changing any statements of fact. If there's a statement of fact changed among all that, I missed it, and it isn't the main thing that is happening in your edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that I need to enclose the information in quotes? Please understand that this is the same Bloomberg article cited as supporting this OPINION 16:38, 1 September 2009 86.134.166.44 (talk) (8,735 bytes) (Made clear Jett Capital is a firm that exists in website only.) (undo)
Whereas the Bloomberg article speaks of Jett's business dealings that were called into question. Including that the New York Times reported he was commanding $8000 on the lecture circuits and running an investment banking business despite having not paid the SEC.
These are pertinent because this page is trying to assert a falsehood that Jett has no business in reality and is supposedly publicly scorned. This is false and that is what the article shows. I will put it in quotations but please explain further your problem with it.
The article says nothing of the kind. So why when the article is allowed to speak for itself is there some wrongdoing on my part? I will revise it enclosing it in quotes but how can it be enclyclopedic when this entire article is clearly a diatribe using such statements as the JOE JETT losses and other forms that are simply attacks? Deaththrow (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This entire page seems to be playing by rules not allowed eslewhere on Wikipedia. It is a diatribe pure and simple, apparently lorded over by a group that is espousing a particular viewpoint.
- I don't understand what you are saying about this article; to me, what you are saying here doesn't resemble what you are actually adding to the article at all. I don't see a diatribe except in the sections you are adding. I don't see anywhere where you are changing a statement of fact. I suggest that, when your block is finished, you find one statement of fact that you want to change, explain it clearly on the talk page without insults, and get consensus from other users for the change- I also suggest skipping the lengthy quote, which is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and doesn't appear to have anything to do with your stated goal. Remember not to undo other users' edits, since returning to edit-warring on this article will result in a much faster block next time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks[edit]
Consider this your only warning about personal attacks. Calling people Nazis because they disagree with your edits is absolutely unacceptable and will get you blocked. I suggest you go back and redact (strike-thru) any and all such allegations. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)