User talk:Dem1970

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.

Another reference
Please review WP:NLT Audemus Defendere (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN regarding Legal Threat. Thank you.Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this edit is a pretty obvious legal threat. It seems very likely to me that you are this article's subject, or are associated with them in some way -- that being the case, you may wish review Wikipedia's conflict of interest page. At first glance, the material in question does appear to be sourced, but I'm unsure of whether it's essential to the article. Would you be willing to join in a civil discussion on the article's talk page, in the interest of developing consensus? – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying. Indeed, AN is the admin noticeboard (named so because it's used to get admin attention; anyone is free to post). Glad we had a chance to talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Response
Please don't throw around terms like "biased". We are all biased in our own way, and others can appear biased based on our own. It tends to upset or aggravate people, which would lead to far more problems in the long run. What we want to try and achieve is compromise. If a statement is sourced, then it should be entered. All statements should try to have sources. The language of summarizing the sources should be discussed and agreed upon. Everyone should have participation, because this encyclopedia will last a very long time and one person cannot do all of the work. Although you and Audemus disagree, you are both active participants, and it is necessary that you come to terms with each other. Otherwise, there could be a long lasting damage to the content of the page, and that will not help anyone.

Does this make sense? Try and befriend others, even if they believe exactly everything opposite to what you believe. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, could you demonstrate your williness to be friendly and civil by removing your comment about victims and the such? Instead on what Audemus has said in the past, lets move on. I think it would help everyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories and the rest do not mean that they should not appear. It just means that they should not have a significant spot. Basically, a source should be given one line per page, unless it is an academic source, and then it may require a few more to explain the argument. Opinions should fit on only one line. Now, if you disagree with the nature of the source, there is a notice board here. If the community agrees that the source is not reliable, then it is removed completely. Understand? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
I wouldn't take any stock in Ottava Rima's misinterpretations of policy. This user has a history of similar disruption on other articles and was apparently banned from an entire area of Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior. I think Steve Windom will probably have the good sense not to respond to this person. For now, I'm going to just ignore him. If he keeps it up, I'll report him to ANI or open an RFC on him. It looks like your "pal" may have taken my words to heart and left the building anyway. Best Regards! Cleo123 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
The following was posted on the ANI Board. Could you please, confirm or deny the accuracy of Ottava's statements about you? Cleo123 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC
I have filed a RFC re: Cleo123. As one of the parties involved in the current dispute, you're invited to participate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123, cheers Tendancer (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with dispute
There is a living person biography on Troy King, Attorney General of Alabama. There is currently a dispute between editors about the inclusion of the name of a staff employee who was mentioned in an article. I don't think the publication of the name of the specific employee adds anything to the story and I am trying to err on the side of caution considering that the employee is entitled to a greater degree of privacy than the public offical. More importantly, this is a bio page about the Attorney General not the employee. Would you please check in the discussion page for Troy King and offer your opinions and direction for us please.Gray10k (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)