User talk:EditorialReviewWiki

"You have tried to post a link to the Citizen Media Law blog to claim that the lawsuit was dismissed by some kind of "agreement". This is a blog, not a verifiable news source and there are no court papers or filings available on this blog to verify your statement. Unless it is properly sourced, this statement cannot appear on this Wikipedia entry. Please do not edit this entry with this statement again. You also changed a statement to read that the lawsuit was dismissed "because Hollis agreed to settle." How would you know that? Again, a statement with no evidence whatsoever to support it. If you continue to maliciously edit this entry as you have done over the last several weeks, we will protect it so that it cannot be edited by anyone."

I agree with IP 76. There is no evidence to support the claims made by IP 207.

All court documents associated with the case are linked from the Citizen Media Law blog. The specific court document which provides definitive evidence of the settlement is now linked directly as a pdf file.

Other assertions within the article remain unsupported and should be removed. For example, no evidence exists that "Cunningham and her legal team have asserted that her site is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and bears no legal liability for posted material." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you run the Citizen Law blog? The link you provided does not lead to definitive evidence. Additionally, postings remained on the site until August 2010, three years after this litigation when it was announced that all postings on the site would be removed in favor of a forum where women could post about any topic.

Additionally, your statement regarding the CDA should not be removed. There are hundreds of articles online where Ms. Cunningham and her legal team have stated that there are protected by the CDA.

You're obviously working in bad faith here. You need to be reported within Wikipedia which I will do if your bad faith actions continue. You know that the link I provided gives a court document with definitive evidence of the settlement. This is undeniable.

Are you falsely claiming that postings about Hollis remained on the site until August of 2010? I'd like to know why you think you can prove that more definitively than I can prove that postings about him were removed within a short period of time following the settlement.

If hundreds of articles exist about Ms. Cunningham's assertion then surely the link can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be Hollis, right? Is that why you keep changing only one section of this entry related to whether the lawsuit was dismissed or not, right? I've already reported you to Wikipedia and they will be reviewing the page and semi-protecting it like they did in 2009 when 207.38.242.226 initiated an editing war.

I'm not Hollis. I've simply followed the case and believe it should be reported accurately. I'm an uninterested party reporting relevant facts into the article and will be viewed that way. You and 76.108.196.241 are obliviously the same and in Miami. You might be part of the defense and are trying to misrepresent what happened in the case in order to minimize future legal exposure.

It is appropriate to link to Hollis' complaint as a reference to the statement about it being filed. It's appropriate to state that the case was settled since it was the settlement that prompted the case to be dismissed, and it's appropriate to link to the judge's statement regarding the settlement. Also, where is the proof that the post was removed? You have absolutely no proof of that, but you're making a statement like that in an effort to distort this article.

I welcome a Wikipedia review. The last review and semi-protection resulted in language regarding both parties reaching an agreement. I am willing to reinstate that language if you are. Otherwise, I believe that relevant facts about the case should remain in the article. If you disagree, then you obviously are attempting to distort this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not IP 76. Looks like 76 checked out of this war a while back. IP 207, whomever that might be, is definitely attempting to distort this article, though. Just curious 207 - where is the proof that before August 2010, the Hollis posting was removed? Where is the actual proof of that? Why would you make a statement like that without any definitive proof, because you want to distort the article. It's already been reported to Wiki and they will decide. It's been semi-protected once due to an editing war. If you're going to state the facts, state them correctly and provide definitive proof that the post in question was removed before August 2010.

IP 76 edited this article today at 22:52, 27 August 2010, which is 6 minutes after a series of your edits. It damages your credibility to state otherwise. Language stating that the Hollis posting was removed from the website isn't a distortion since it is exactly what happened, however, I'm willing to exclude that language if you are willing to keep the language about the settlement which is clearly evidenced by the judge's document. I'm trying to be fair. Why are you insisting on excluding facts which have linked evidence? I'm hoping that this receives a 3rd party review and is semi-protected again. I'm confident in the agreement language being reinserted as it was after the last edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk)

The statement about Cunningham's CDA assertions should remain excluded until it can be properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see that from IP 76, but you still haven't answered the question about proving that the post in question was removed prior to August 2010? Present your proof. In addition, looks like you posted link to the Hollis complaint, but why didn't you post the links to Ms. Cunningham's Answer and Counter Claim against him for defamation? Looks like your objective 3rd party view just went out the window. Someone who didn't have an agenda would have presented both sides. I suspect this page will be locked shortly. It's clear you're not an independent third-party, but perhaps Hollis himself.

Why did you delete all the references? Like I said, I'm open to excluding language about the removal of the Hollis posting. I also think it's a good idea to include the defense response to the Hollis complaint and will do so. I'm trying to make this article accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice that I include Cunningham's claim about the CDA and referenced it with a link to the defense court document. I think this is fair. Can we agree on the current language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not even trying to work with me to present something accurate. Why do you insist on deleting the links to the court documents? Are you Tasha?

I included language about the CDA protection claim and found a reference for it. Now the article contains both a claim by Hollis and a claim by Cunningham which should be viewed as fair. I’m willing to work on the wording, but you have to admit that it’s fair to present both sides.

I've excluded language about the Hollis posting being removed because I'm not willing to post my screen shot of the 'no record found' search for Hollis which is dated a few weeks after the settlement.

I've proven that this case was settled after the judge did not grant the motion to dismiss. This fact is very germane to the paragraph and should be included.

Are you willing to work with me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you Tasha? Why aren't you willing to be fair with respect to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you answer about being Tasha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this. As you can see, I actually contribute to other Wikipedia entries from time-to-time. You don't. You are and have been obsessed with this one entry for years as the history shows. The lawsuit has been over for almost half a decade and you continue to try and make it out like Hollis somehow won this case, when it is obvious from the court documents that he did not. That is not accurate, fair or neutral. Your point of view is obviously slanted. Why do you care so much? Why are you so obsessed with this entry? Both lawsuits were dismissed. That is a fact. Why would you not leave it at that? Because for some reason, you want to make it appear that Hollis was triumphant here? That is totally inaccurate. You state that you have a "no records found" search for some Hollis posting shortly after what you call a "settlement"? That is truly a level of obsession that is scary. You are totally obsessed with this entry and do not have the impartial point of view to edit it. That is obvious. I've already received two responses back from Wikipedia regarding this entry and it is being tracked, so you can keep up the editing war if you want to, but eventually, this entry will be either semi-protected or fully protected and blocked from your ability to edit. I will also e-mail Wiki today with this edit history, further proof that you are not by any means impartial and must have something to do with this case. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be used. And IP 76, please stop editing my talk page. You can edit the entry or create your own talk page, but since you are not involved in this, don't edit what I write on my own talk page. Thank you!

You still have not denied being Tasha. I have no connection to this case at all. I have attempted to work with you on this paragraph, but you insist on deleting all links to the case. The case was obviously settled. That fact is undeniable. Defense may have wanted to hide the fact that a settlement occurred, but the judge's order to dismiss directly references the settlement! The fact that you want hide the settlement leads me to believe that you are Tasha or otherwise connected to this case. Otherwise, why would you care so much about hiding the links to the settlement? I hope this is article is reviewed by another party because you are definitely not neutral. The last time it was protected the fact that both parties reached an agreement was included and a link to the court documents remained in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed the early talk where I said I was NOT Tasha. Also, the links to the court documents have always been there. You're obsessed and now, just like I said, the article has been semi-protected. Hopefully, your malicious editing won't be tolerated anymore. You have no connection to the case, but you did a search for Hollis on the DontDateHimGirl.com website and took a screenshot of "no records found"? WTF?! Why would you do that? Absolutely NOT neutral. Further, why would write about posting your screenshot on this page. You are absolutely not neutral. I don't think IP 76 is either. You're both using Wikipedia to engage in an editing war that doesn't make sense. I did not appreciate IP 76 messing with my edits, so I called it out on this page letting IP 76 know they can create their own talk page and not be on this one.

No you've only got three reverts since the article has been semi-protected already just like I said. Let's see what you do with those. You are truly obsessed and although you say you have no connection to this case, it is clear you do. Why don't you edit anything else on Wikipedia. For years, you've only edited this entry. Obsessed much?

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on DontDateHimGirl.com. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stifle for taking a look at this page and semi-protecting it!

Again, EditorialReviewWiki, you've written entries into your talk page as IP 76. It's obvious from the View History tab of your talk page. You can drop the pretense that you are not the same as IP 76 and that you are in Miami and very likely directly connected to Tasha or to this case. Regardless, you continue to edit this page as if you are doing Tasha's PR work. I'll give you one last chance to edit this page objectively. If you don't, then I welcome an objective review that locks this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)