User talk:Armandoatdailykos

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ForestH2
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome
It's being handled. My long-standing wikipedian advice is for you not to participate untill long-standing wikipedians who believe invading the privacy of not-notable lawyers is wrong fail in their attempts to distance not-notable lawyers from notable bloggers. If you send an email to the board of wikipedia, the contravercy will bloom out of control in the second order (actions taken by the board are widely reviewed. Actions taken by the community are not). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR
We don't include original research in our articles. Even though what you wrote may be true, if you can't properly cite it outside of Wikipedia, it will be removed. Also, we don't sign our contributions in articles. You may want to add this information to the talk page of the article instead, and other editors will help you source whatever can be sourced. Cheers, NoSeptember  15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit to the Daily Kos article
Armando, I appreciate your attempt to explain the situation. However, I had to remove it because it was out-of-proportion to the rest of the article in terms of length and violated the rules on point of view (NPOV). I do think the current form of the article is lacking, but it is probably best to wait for the community to make a decision on this as Hipocrite suggested above. Of course, if you can show that anything in the current article is demonstrably false, it can surely be removed in the meantime. - Maximusveritas 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yur current article is clearly false and unverified. You replaced my edits and left this flase and u nverified statement.

"Deriving from incidents of his own self-identification during appearances on NPR and other outlets"

This is FALSE. I did NOT self identify. I DEMAND that edit be left alone. I am removing it. You have NO evidence of this. As the person who knows, I am the only possible source.

"his name and other details were published in venues including publications of Stanford University, this wiki, and the conservative National Review."

This is false. There was ONE Stanford publication, for a legal conference in April 2005. It led to no one knowing or publishing the information. It did NOT list my clients or provde a link to my firm. It is a dormant untrafficked link that no one would see UNLESS they were looking to out me.

This WIKI was used by a malicious troll to post completely irrelevant information and now that malicious act is used to justify the disseminaion? That is truly outrageous and not particularly smart for Wiki BTW. You may want to reconsider that position.

"As a lawyer, Armando is concerned that ethical issues would arise if he were to continue blogging while representing nationally-known companies including Wal-Mart"

This is completely fabricated. I am deleting it immediately.
 * Ok, I will remove the false statements and try to reduce it to the bare facts. Maximusveritas 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for the sharp tone. I appreciate your consideration on this.

Now you send the letter
Now is the time to write a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Sorry that it fell apart. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

sign comments; afd pending
Armando, please sign your comments on talk/discussion pages with four tilde's ( ~ ). That expands to your name and timestamp.

There is also currently an Articles for Deletion discussion about your biographical article that you might want to contribute to and/or cast a vote in. But it's about to close; I only recently became aware of it. Phr (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for your troubles here
Armando, sorry for your troubles here. I voted to delete and protect from being recreated for a year. I apologise for the Wikipedia users that are pushing to get their way despite your requests. You are clearly someone that does not rise to the level of notability that an article on you is a must to cover the topic. Please let me know if there is anything specific that I can do to help your situation. Take care, FloNight   talk  01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration.

The most important thing I would like to see is the removal of the name Armando Llorens-Sar, both in the existing Armando(Blogger) article and the separate article by that name.

I must be truthful with you, I never liked Wikipedia precisely because of this potential. I hope Wikipedia addresses this issue generally in a responsible manner. It is a great threat to your project.--Armandoatdailykos 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)