User talk:Emcsweegan

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove well sourced material like you did in this edit. You can add other sources and statements if you wish, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what can be considered a reliable source, but do not remove sourced statements. --Conti|✉ 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning. Stop removing material from Lyme disease or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss the issue on Talk:Lyme disease, but do not blindly remove everything you don't like. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard about your biography

Hello, just wanted to let you know I've brought your biography page at Edward McSweegan to Wikipedia administrators' attention here in the hopes that this highly contentious issue may be resolved. I suggest you relay your concerns to administrators about your biography in this post. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any additional comments or concerns. All the best, Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Edward McSweegan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Edward McSweegan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan. Thank you. — Shinhan < talk > 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. McSweegan, please take the time to read over the article before being so quick to revert it. It is nothing like the original article (which I agree was appalling). Blueboy 96 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (some) of your confusion and frustration but your edits and reversions to the article are not the right way to go about things. I fear that you may be blocked if you continue along this path as your edits have become quite disruptive. Please reconsider your actions and display some patience as we work through these issues. --ElKevbo 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your disruptive edits I will ask that you be blocked. Please stop. --ElKevbo 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I correct errors in a posting about me, which I don't want on Wiki in the first place, and you threaten me. Is this some kind of online Mafia? Who are you people? What gives you the right to define who and what I am? I'll bet you a paycheck this nonsense winds up in the news and then in the courts. At the very least, there should be a disclaimer at the top of the page alerting readers to the fact that I did not write that horrible, disjointed entry of cherry-picked factoids and rumors. I think that's a reasonable start. Don't you? Emcsweegan 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's reasonable that we place a notice at the top of every encyclopedia article stating that the subject of the article did not write it. Not only is that silly to do in an encyclopedia, it's quite silly to do in the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't think any reasonable person believes that we solicit our articles from the subjects about which those articles are written.

Further, our (very reasonable) conflict of interest guidelines definitely give you the right to make suggestions, recommendations, and comments about your article on its Talk page. I'm sure that you can appreciate our need to avoid conflicts of interest! And please believe that I am sincere when I say that we want your input about your article on the article's Talk page. But to allow a subject to control what is said about them in their own article is an obvious problem and one that we must avoid if we are to remain neutral.

No, we're not perfect. Please work with us to become better! --ElKevbo 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A solution

I have requested that all versions of your article prior to today be deleted from the article's revision history, as per our Wikipedia:Requests for oversight process. The previous version is what we at Wikipedia call an attack page--it was intended solely to disparage you, and we do not tolerate the creation of such material here. Under this process, hopefully the offending material will be gone by the time the weekend's out.

I apologize that this wasn't caught sooner--but I also ask that you give us a chance to make things right. Blueboy 96 01:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been oversighted--that version Freyfaxi did is no longer visible. Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns. Blueboy 96 01:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what happened--every last version of that article prior to today has been deleted from the revision history. It seemed from what I was reading on the AfD discussion that your main objection was to the fact the previous version was still available for viewing. That's no longer the case now. However, if you still want the article deleted, I'm sure that'll be taken into consideration. Blueboy 96 04:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That email you posted

As much as I can understand your outrage that Freyfaxi is at it again, posting emails here is a violation of WP:COPY, and may violate our policies against posting others' personal information. Blueboy 96 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bio page

Sorry about what you've been through here. I tried to edit a little bit. The Lyme POV editors will be back with new names but I will watchlist the page. RetroS1mone talk 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]