User talk:AnarchistAssassin

July 2009
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, pointing out the criminal actions of a registrar, and using a valid reference, is not a personal commentary. I've fulfilled the 'burden of proof' in assertion; where is yours in your rebuttal?

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. 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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, Dred Scott lost his case, but it's not considered insignificant because of that; in fact, that's where its value lies. For example, the blog known as the New York Times did a piece on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04bar.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1204779600&en=fbfa2e2586c552a8&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin By the way, you can go to alexa.com and use the WayBackMachine -- which will tell you exactly who owned these domains several years ago. http://www.archive.org/web/web.php -- Please, tell me if you think Enom legitimately owned these domain names several years ago; and if they did not, which you will find, then they're legally obligated to transfer them.  And if they don't, (and they aren't), then they're breaking the law.  Where is my reasoning incorrect?


 * No, but the Dred Scott article doesn't state that he won the case. That was the point I made: according to the source you cited, the First American case was open. It is a distortion of the sourced facts to say First American won its case. Your reasoning is not the issue. However, articles can't be built on reasoning or synthesis; they have to be based on facts and information published in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true, I did misquote that case specifically, and that word "successfully" was removed by another wikipedia editor. Now it's factual.  You don't have to come back, AFTER the edit, to completely delete the section, on grounds of an alleged fact, that isn't even referenced in it anymore.


 * Actually, I'm the editor who removed the word "successfully" and neutralized the section heading by adding "allegations of" to it. Other editors have challenged the material and the nature of the sourcing - and deleted the section wholesale. At this point, since it's been contested, discussion is the necessary step to address their concerns about the sourcing. Edit warring/discussion by edit summary is not the appropriate process. If the section is deleted again, it's time to take the matter to Talk:ENom and discuss it there. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://web.archive.org/web/20030123123430/http://malaysiaproduct.com/ There's a verifiable link, that demonstrates the original owner of malaysiaproduct.com . Testing the other domain names, in fact, necessarily demonstrates that the original owners of these domains was never, and has never been, Enom.  Or, is the WayBackMachine considered a blog, too?


 * That demonstrates that, at that point in time, SearchMalaysia.com held the copyright over the content on the malaysiaproduct.com page. That does not show anything about future (or prior) owners of the domain name. Drawing any further conclusion based on that page alone is original research. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * C. Talk -- Please read and review!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the  United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used  conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Thank you!!!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. You were advised above to discuss the matter on the talk page. Since it was buried in a thread, I'll re-iterate here. You've made bold edits; they've been reverted. Now is the time to discuss the matter. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Use talkpages, not user pages
Please leave messages for other users on their talk pages, not their user pages as you did here and here. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)