User talk:TEPs4justice

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Tau Epsilon Phi appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Manway (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tau Epsilon Phi. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Manway (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

You obviously have an agenda against the current leadership of TEP. Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances. Please do not re-add. Your edits are not encyclopedic and your sources are not reliable. Thank you for your cooperation. --Manway (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU MIDWAY

Your changes are correct and i didnot add the first edit. I just undid a removal.

Thank you. Your current edit is neutral and sourced properly. Appreciate it. Regards, --Manway (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Court documents are primary sources. A lawsuit is not considered notable unless it is covered in secondary sources, i.e. the media. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Court documents may contain unverified accusations and hearsay. Most lawsuits are not notable and will not be added to articles until there is a ruling on the case. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a final ruling. An order to show cause is not a ruling, it's an order. It's part of the ongoing process. It ain't over until there is a ruling or it's dismissed. Yworo (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources. In general, we don't use primary sources, especially primary legal sources, because of interpretation issues. In specific, for legal cases, we only report ongoing legal cases if they are in the media, because then there are secondary sources. A final ruling is an exception to this, because not all cases get reported in the media. It's common sense. If you'd like a second opinion, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Court documents are usually used to grind axes. That's not permitted here. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 must 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) 21:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents

Court documents may not be used as sources. If you do not desist from attempting to add this material to the article, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may summarize what is in the secondary source. If you do so, you should summarize the whole situation. You may not link to or use any material from the court documents. In particular, your summary is incorrect. The suit is a civil suit. That means that nobody is being "charged" with anything. I will look into summarizing the content of the secondary source properly. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please look at what I've written. I think I've summarized all the pertinent points related to TEP from the Gainesville Sun article. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Looks Great!! TEPs4justice (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... Yworo (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to TEP list

Phi Chi is now listed twice; once in the active chapters list and once in the inactive list - It can't be both, can it? TG 703 Timmccloud (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issue removals.

Dear Tep4Justice, I see you have wholesale reverted the Legal Issues section. Since you actually posted in the discussion about the removal, under the circumstances this is considered being very rude to the other editors on Wikipedia who are trying to come to a consensus - as it appears you have taken a unilateral action and ignored the discussion being carried on. I will be reverting your edit until a consensus can be reached, and I would advise you to review The Wikipedia POLICY on neutral points of view, as this is what the discussion is all about. I would highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit warring and pay specific attention to the three revert rule (3RR). Do not revert the Legal Issues removal again until consensus is reached - that is what is considered edit warring, and can get you banned from editing on Wikipedia - consider this your first and only warning.

Another extremely valid point from the discussion you ignored is that all court cases were settled and the lawsuit you were involved in specified that it "provides for the dismissal of all claims against the Directors and Officers of Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity". You might be considered breaking that agreement by keeping this lawsuit information extant in a public forum like this.

Finally I would like to refer to your comment about Enron - those legal issues were discussed internationally for YEARS, as the impact of it's collapse had a huge effect on the markets, the entire energy trading industry, and ultimately legislation on how corporations could invest their employees pensions. There is no way you can compare the two sets of legal issues, you are too close to the subject matter to see this clearly.

I'm pretty sure I know who you are (and I believe we have spoken on the phone once via Lane) and for what you did to save our Fraternity garners the utmost respect and eternal gratitude from me. Please take this entire stern warning in the spirit of respect and Friendship that it's delivered; you have inadvertently crossed a line that is considered pretty sacrosanct on Wikipedia by this reversion, and I don't want this to get out of control. You are not alone in making this mistake, I did it too when I was a neophyte editor and got slapped down really hard for doing so. I wanted this warning to come from a friend first.

In friendship, Timmccloud (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that some information about this matter should be in the article (see the points I've raised on the talk page), the amount you are adding is certainly undue. That means that is an excessive amount of information compared to the overall size of the article. The sheer length implies that this lawsuit is one of the most important things to ever happen to this fraternity, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Note, also, that court documents can never be used as sources. What I recommend you do is to try to cut down that info to one paragraph or less, and propose that paragraph on the article's talk page. If you don't want to or know how, I plan to do so myself, but not for a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]