User talk:Britgirl7

Hello Juluke2,

(I'm sending this message to you on your talk page to take this conversation off of the discussion page for the SethSwirsky article.) I just wanted to provide a different context for MoeLarryAndJesus's actions and for the recent activity on the SethSwirsky article.

First, regarding MoeLarryAndJesus, most of the evidence that you gave that indicated that we should not assume good faith happened before his 3RR block and a discussion that I've had with him about appropriate contributions on Wikipedia regarding civility and such. Addition of hourly sales figures could be considered a good faith edit. Regarding his edits on the Dick Cheney page, however, I certainly would agree with you. He had been warned though, and hasn't made further nonconstructive edits on that page. So, the block dealt with his previous revert warring; the user page warning dealt with his recent vandalism. It doesn't make sense to me to continue punishment by continuing assumption of bad faith. How can we integrate an editor into the community after a block or a warning without assuming good faith upon their return?

As regards the recent changes to the SethSwirsky article, it seems strange to make the claim that this latest round of vandalism is being directed by MoeLarryAndJesus, or that there is a round of vandalism at all. In fact, there is one contributor, Hipocrite who has made the recent deletion of the material concerning the political writings. If you visit his user page, he has placed a call for notices about articles that are using blogs as sources for information. I suspect that this recent removal of information from the SethSwirsky page is just collateral damage from a perhaps too broadly applied "rule".

Cheers, Sanchom (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)