User talk:Dryad42

Please explain your removal of sourced information
Please explain this edit. It looks like vandalism to me. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I'm not sure if this is the correct way to respond to this message, as I'm new to this!


 * The deleted phrase stated that, according to the article, the Guardian had offered to pay the BCA's legal costs IF SINGH CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL. This is inaccurate. Careful reading of the article, in particular this bit:


 * "We supported Simon and funded his legal advice when the case was brought against him. The recommended legal advice was to settle out of court and we offered to pay for the British Chiropractic Association's costs should he choose to follow this course of action,"


 * indicates that the Guardian offered to pay the BCA's costs if Simon agreed to settle out of court WHEN THE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, NOT on the basis of his agreeing not to appeal the preliminary decision. I guess maybe that offer is worth mentioning somewhere on the page, but I felt since the statement as it stood was incorrect it should be removed.


 * Dryad42 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then discuss the matter on the talk page and see if you and the other editors who watch that article can come up with a consensus version. That's the proper way to do it. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do that - thanks for the advice! I'll get the hang of this eventually..... :) Dryad42 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)