Talk:Mark Petersen-Perez

Spelling
This article was to correct spelling of a the Mark Peterson-Perez article, which is currently in the AFD process. It will be deleted if the decision is "delete", and the other article will be redirected here if the decision is "keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPdd (talk • contribs)
 * Mark Peterson-Perez now redirects to Mark Petersen-Perez. red dog six  (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please stop deleting every section in the article
Reddogsix, please stop [deleting every section in the article during construction for your reason that the information was already in the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the article body, so repititions of material is supposed to happen, the opposite of your deletion basis. [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please stop removing references
Why was this reference removed with edit summary that it does not support the text? PPdd (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no where in the report is Peterson-Perez mentioned. red dog six (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not true. From the report: ":Mr. Petersen-Perez is a financial analyst and he spoke about Taser International’s financial statement." Please stop removing references without reading them. PPdd (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

PROD
Per "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason", I am taking down the PROD tag put up with this concern - "concern=Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO." 1. "Minor activist" is unquantified and not supported by any source. 2. The mainstream local Palo Alto press "lacking substance" is unquantified and is not a required criterion in any cited policy or guidleline. 3. No reliable source supports that the assorted Polo Alto press stories lacks substance. 4. GHits of a specific number is not a necessary ctiteron in any cited policy or guideline. PPdd (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this addresses the statement that the individual does not meet WP:BIO or any other notability criteria.  red dog six  (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please do not remove my construction tag again
Reddogsix, please do not remove my construction tag again. You removed it becauase I did not make an edit you considered to be of substnace for 37 hours. That is not appropriate. Please stop. PPdd (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please undo you reference style change
Reddogsix, please undo you reference style change. Per MOS - "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason... defer to the style used by the first major contributor." You did an AfD on this article, and your repeated deletions and style changes are wasting my time. Please stop. PPdd (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please restore all content you deleted while construction tags were up, especially during AfD
Reddogsix, please restore all content you deleted while construction tags were up. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddogsix, please do not remove redlinks while construction tags are up
Reddogsix, please do not remove redlinks while construction tags are up. I was planning on starting articles regarding the redlinks. Please respect the constructon tag. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncited
The following text was not cited:
 * His method of exercising his First Amendment guaranteed right to petition the government for redress triggered a government response of trying to have a court remove this free speech right entirely. The government position was that he was abusing the right. Petersen-Perez and government employees engaged in a series of back and forth defamations. Petersen-Perez maintained that the government employees could not mount a coordinated defamation of a private citizen while on government time. The city attorney maintained that Petersen-Perez was a public figure, while the government employees were not. So the defamation of Petersen-Perez should be allowed, but not the defamation of the government employees.

I have concerns that this is not an accurate portrayal of what happened, so I have removed it from the article. Location (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)