User talk:Llm1017

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Reciprocal inter-insurance exchange, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Swizzlez 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Case vs Gwernol

I hear where your coming from Llm1017, there's an ArbCom case against Gwernol. You can follow the link below and add any relevant statement on him. The guy is overzealous to say the least. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration 71.97.247.196

Your edit to User:Carnildo

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD for USAA article and your comment on my talk page

You left a long message on my talk page, and since I nommed the article for deletion, I wanted in good faith to reply. There is a big difference in the two cases which directly affect article notability. The Walmart case set a precedence as the largest class-action case in the world, it spawned a book, and it has a judgement. The USAA case, as far as I can see, has none of those. I would have thought diffenently about the USAA article if you had written it more encyclopedically, and especially if you had cited independent sources. For instance, has the case been the subject of articles in national magazines? Has it received write-ups in any law journals? How about notable newspaper coverage? If there's such articles available online (and I stress that I mean independent sources, this does not include blogs, forums and other biased web site material), citing these in an article is essential. It's the difference between material that should be removed from the encyclopedia, and material that should be kept. And, just for the record, I'm completely unbiased about the issue...I could care less about the case. What a care about is a quality encyclopedia, which is why I'm here as an editor. From your comments, you have very strong opinions on the case, which make it somewhat problematic for you to write articles about it that don't have a POV. You might want to consider backing off and letting the case run its course, then once it has established a form of notability, allow someone who isn't on one side or another to write the article. The Walmart article is dry, objective and factual. That's how an article on this case should read, once the case arrives at a judgement. Hope this helps, and while you're always welcome to write messages to me that are about the technical side of writing and editing, please do not include me in discussions about the case, its merits, or any legal threats you're making against the project. Thanks. Akradecki 01:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I have no idea who you are, or what you are referring to when you accuse me of slander and libel. You might want to read up on what slander is, by the way; since I have never spoken to you or of you in, its impossible for me to have slandered you. Its also clear that I have not abuse my administrative powers by protecting the USAA article from continued WP:POV-pushing by you and your friends and/or sockpuppets. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your agenda and help your legal case. This is not appropriate and will not be allowed. You should also read our policy on making legal threats which you are very close to contravening. Thanks, Gwernol 08:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Gwernol 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)