User talk:Stogies87

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Danny DeVall has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Danny DeVall. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Last Warning

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. RaseaC (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Your edits are disruptive because you have tried to re-add them repeatedly, otherwise known as revert warring, and the next time you do so you will be blocked from editing (as will your IP). The information you are adding would have to be cited (using said court documents) and neutral. It is clear that you are just upset and on a personal vendetta against the subject of the article. Something along the lines of 'In 20--, so-in-so was sued in a small claims court relating to unpaid wages insert source here' may be acceptable but I would doubt it because it is pretty unnoteworthy, if it got press attention then you may have grounds for inclusion but I'm assuming you didn't so personally I would leave it out and I would assume other established editors would agree. WP is not the place to carry out personal vendettas. RaseaC (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to prove the outcome of the case, and preferably the content of it, that's why the media is good because an article summarises all of that pretty well. Above all else you have to prove notability, and I don't believe this is notable, I could be wrong, but that's my opinion. Might I suggest going to the content noticeboard where uninvolved editors can put down their view if they wish. As it stands this is the situation: one inexperienced editor with a personal vendetta against the subject matter versus two more experienced, impartial editors. Doesn't look good does it? RaseaC (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"all I want is for the internet community to know the truth and not get suckered into having what happened to myself and 20 other individuals to happen again"

that's a personal vendetta. As I said, the content noticeboard might be an idea, but at the moment consensus is against you. Sorry, RaseaC (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making allegations for someone without backing them up, so essentially attacking their character. Please read WP:CITE for information on how to cite sources/provide references. You still have the small problem of notability to contend with. A good test of notability is that if someone unrelated to the subject puts the info onto WP then it's notable, if someone imitimately involved in the subject (i.e. you) puts the info onto WP then it isn't notable. And no, my opinion isn't truth. It's exactly that, my opinion. You don't have to listen to anything I say but I'm giving you advice here, and I think it's good advice that will stop you from getting that ban you've been warned about. RaseaC (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Hang on, information being added by a neutral person is an indication that it may be notable. I really do suggest that you check out WP:NOTABILITY as that explains it better than me. And a word to the wise: don't just go and get someone else to add the info, we're pretty good at spotting that sort of thing. RaseaC (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The biography of living persons policy, WP:Verifiability and Neutral point of view are probably better policies to look at in this case than WP:Notability as notability is for topics, not article content. Camw (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, your court docket number may be a reliable source, not proof of notability. I'm really not the person to be answering these questions, the policies are. RaseaC (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

" I have truth from my court case"

Re: this (and other) edits. See Wikipedia:Truth. Also consider whether you have a conflict of interest (hint: you do). Truth is not the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, notability is. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)