User talk:WordBomb

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Mantanmoreland 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not deface articles by adding nonsensical accusations against Wiki editors and lengthy, unsourced diatribes. In your approximately first twenty minutes of existence on Wikipedia you have violated two serious Wikipedia policies. This is not a Usenet message board. Please edit constructively.--Mantanmoreland 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now my third warning to you in your approximately eight-hour career as a Wikipedia editor.

Do not push your personal animus toward Weiss, made fairly plain by your bizarre and libelous accusations now deleted, in which you accused myself to be a sockpuppet of Weiss. You now have added an entire section mischaracterizing a libel suit that was dropped and did not create "precendent," and falsely accuse the underlying article of being "inaccurate." You apparently joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of carrying out an agenda concerning Weiss. Please desist. If you continue to make further bad-faith edits for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia and furthering your agenda, you will be blocked.--Mantanmoreland 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I would take Mantanmoreland's warnings seriously. Adding unsourced, potentially libelous materials concerning a living person is a grave transgression. Such additions can be reverted without regard to the three-revert rule. The "three revert rule" requires that editors not make more than three reverts to an article within a 24-hour period. See WP:3RR.--Lastexit 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, only in cases of blatant vandalism should contributions be removed in their entirety. I've included numerous citations relating to a circumstance at which Gary Weiss, the subject of the article, was at the center. It was a billion-dollar lawsuit which tested the limits of the law in the digital age. An objective observer might just say it has a place in the article. If you disagree with the facts of the case, as is your right, then please make the corresponding edits. Removing them outright is a breach of Wikipedia protocol, and thus you've given me no choice but to escalate this matter for further review. Let the truth be told. 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, a new editor whose first contribution is to insert libelous accusations against a living person and a Wiki editor, all in one edit, is in no position to talk about "breaches of Wikipedia protocol." Your effort to add libelous message board chatter to an article was just plain vandalism and it was properly deleted. The lengthy section you want to insert in the article on the Julian Robertson article is also libelous and inaccurate. You want to place a lengthy rant on a dropped lawsuit that created no legal precedent and at most deserves possibly one sentence. I'm familiar with that lawsuit and with Julian Robertson. The suit was dropped before trial and no money was paid and no retraction was issued. No precedent was created. You've inserted it plainly as a vehicle for the axe that you have to grind. No court decisions were issued so the suit "tested the limits" of nothing.

The reason you are being addressed so harshly, at least by myself, is you are focused on one article and have made bad faith edits that are pushing an agenda. For that reason the usual assumption of good faith does not apply.--Lastexit 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just see things differently. We probably need a third party to help us sort it out. I've requested a mediation and trust the process will be prompt and fair. Until then, please leave my most recent edits intact for the mediator's review. Let the truth be told. 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's needed is that you learn the fundamental rules and procedures of Wikipedia and not add unsourced derogatory information about living persons.--Lastexit 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and User Page Vandalism Warning

Your edits in the Gary Weiss article are in excess of the three-revert rule. WP:3RR. Please do not make further edits of that article in violation of this rule.

Also please do not vandalize user pages by placing "vandalism warnings" for proper edits. Removal of the unsourced derogatory and potentially libelous material that you placed in the Gary Weiss article is not vandalism.--Lastexit 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I've made a request for mediation of this and prior issues relating to the Gary Weiss article, and look forward to a constructive and very open discussion. As it happens, I have gathered additional information bearing on these topics which I'm eager to present in the course of making my case. By the time we're done, I'm quite certain there will be no question in anybody's mind as to the facts, and I suspect the record will be edited to reflect as much. If it should turn out that we're wrong, I'll be the first to beg your pardon. Either way, I hope we can be friends. Let the truth be told. 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to request mediation that is of course your privilege. My suggestion is that you refrain from making any further changes in this or any article until your request has been acted upon. Your past edits show a total absence of knowledge of proper editing conduct, in addition to an agenda as indicated by your edits and user page. If you continue to behave in this fashion your term at Wikipedia will be brief.--Lastexit 20:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will indeed refrain from further edits until the process can begin. Say...you know an awful lot about Gary Weiss. How exactly is that? Do you know him? Let the truth be told. 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We can have a lovely Wiki chit-chat once you start making good faith edits, if that point is ever reached. Meanwhile I'd suggest that you move on.--Lastexit 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi WordBomb, I've blocked this account indefinitely because you appear to be trying to insert defamatory material into an article, and you also appeared to try to out another Wikipedian (or so you believed). Please note that for the purposes of our harassment policy, it makes no difference whether you're right or not: if you post personal details about another editor, it something that we take very seriously, and it's a blockable offense. If there's an explanation for your edits, and if you can offer an assurance that it won't happen again, I'll be happy to discuss lifting your block. You can either reply here, or e-mail me using the link on my user page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response, in which you repeated the offense (and which I deleted) confirms you're not editing in good faith. I can only repeat that we take the attempted publication of editors' personal details (whether accurate or not) very seriously. This account will therefore remain blocked and I'm going to protect the talk page against further abuse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to arbcom

I have forwarded your request that you emailed to the arbcom for a ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has received your response and rebuttal of this statement (what you were referring to in the email). — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, they already have your input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your questions, stop harassing me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]