User talk:Cordirose

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Robert "Bob" J. Giuda, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Reconsider !  12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Robert "Bob" J. Giuda, you may be blocked from editing. ''If, as you claim, the cited references are inaccurate, please discuss this on the article's talk page first before attempting to suppress material from the article. Thanks.'' Moocha (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Robert "Bob" J. Giuda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please use the talk page to build consensus on this issue. Please don't forget to sign your comments on the talk page. Please take into account that this is vandalism. Please also take into account that this is the fourth and final warning on the issue.'' Moocha (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Backlink to the message you left
Hi. Here's a link to the message you left on my talk page and to my response. Thanks. Moocha (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess I am just too stupid to figure out the machinations of this page. Struthious says that this is all based on the WMUR station. I guess he didn't see that the Nashua Telegraph was also mentioned and the WMUR piece was edited from a much longer interview to 1 min and 48 seconds. All we want is for the whole page to be removed. Why can you not do that?
 * Hi! You're free to propose deletion of any page at any time by following the procedure outlined in Proposed deletion according to Deletion policy.
 * However, I feel obligated to point out that there is very little chance for this article to be deleted - why should it? If there's objectionable material, it can be talked out on the article's talk page, then if the consensus is that it should be excised, it will be excised, and if the consensus is that the material should stay, it will stay. In either case, there's no need to remove the entire article just because someone happens to disagree with one section (not to mention that if it turns out that the contested material is genuine and truthful, it will most certainly stay.)
 * I recommend you look up Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and study it closely - it might help you strengthen your case if you propose deletion, and/or might clarify why people are resisting or even if what you wish is doable.
 * Have fun! Moocha (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Would just like to inform you all that there has been a credible threat to this man's life and the lives of his family that has been turned over to law enforcement as a result of the newspaper article which I will continue to say is not accurate. So I am now asking you again to please remove this page permanently for this family's safety. I hope you have the decency to do so.
 * By that (fallacious, see Straw man for details) logic, any article about any public figure against which anyone has issued a credible threat should be removed. Do you think it's appropiate to do so? Again, I recommend you look up Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and study it closely. Sidenote: Please don't try emotional blackmail, beside being very, very bad taste, it will yield the exact opposite result. It certainly has swayed me. I was neutral about the issue. Presently, if asked, I would vote "Keep". Moocha (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional question: Why not simply discuss this on the article's talk page? Look at the section that irks you so much, rephrase it in order to remove the alleged bias, get request feedback (again, on the talk page) from other interested parties, and if nobody bothers to comment for a reasonable amount of time (say, a couple of work days or so), change it... I really don't understand why you haven't done so in the first place. Of course that simply removing that section will be perceived as an attempt at censorship, especially since you obviously are an interested party in this (see Conflict of interest for details.) Moocha (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.