User talk:Realityengine

July 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't persist in adding content without an acceptable source, per WP:RELIABLE. As well, Wikipedia is not the place to pursue personal agendas. Thank you, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Re: sole interest of editing here to publish content about a non-notable lawsuit. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war

Your recent editing history at OTOY shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addditionally, I suggest you review WP:COI for guidance on editing when you have a conflict of interest. You admitted to being present at OTOY when the incident in question happened. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the page you recommended, i understand what this company is attempting to do is prohibited. What can be done? Also, is there an easier method of communication with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityengine (talk • contribs) (copied from User talk:C.Fred)

There is no evidence that the company is behind the removal of the material. On the other hand, you have admitted to having a conflict of interest, so the COI rules firmly fall on you. Couple that with the fact that the former employee's blog/website is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia policy suggests that the material should be removed.

I've added your talk page to my watchlist; you can reply here, and I'll see the change. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/ search for case number: SC113069 This is the official LA Superior Courts record.

Court records are generally not useable as reliable sources. In this case, because it never went to trial, all the records prove is that they filed a breach of warranty/negligence suit against an individual. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]