User talk:EdelJamie

Blocked for 16 hours.
Your recent edits to were introducing information presented from a non-neutral point of view, and it seems to me that you're using Wikipedia to insert information that adheres to your personal stance on the firm (rather than what the article's reliable sources state). In order to prevent the insertion of similar material, I've placed a 16 hour block on your account; when it expires, please refrain from using Wikipedia to push a bias.

(You can appeal this block by adding &#123;&#123;Unblock|why you should be unblocked&#125;&#125; below.)

AGK 18:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi EdelJamie. I noted, from a review of the [ history] of the Latham & Watkins article, two points:


 * You made three edits to the article, all of which deleted edits previously made by and which introduced a negative POV; that was what led me to suspect you were preserving, for whatever reasons, a sympathetic view on the article—which is an all too common occurrence on the Wikipedia entries of firms or organisations.
 * In the case of Lathaminfo's edits—which, crucially, all seemed to be sourced—you opted to not open discussion, from what I've seen, with the editor, but rather chose to simply make use of the revert function. I've yet to see a case where, obvious vandalism excepted, the revert button is more conducive to a harmonious editing atmosphere than is plain editor discussion.


 * Having said that, Lathaminfo's edits were quite paten POV pushing. I'm not going to opt for the naïve approach and condemn you for not opening discussion; an editor's instinct, upon seeing an account twisting an article in an obviously unfair fashion, is to put a stop to that. I'd rather you tried to discuss it with him or her first, and failing that, contacted an administrator rather than—not after—reverting; but I've been too harsh here. If auburnpilot would like to unblock here, then he has my full consent; and, if he choses not to, then I'm willing to lift my block on the understanding that you'll think things through a little before reverting.


 * AGK 22:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Lathaminfo's edits were sourced. But he replaced an appropriate lead-in overview of the firm with a diatribe on layoffs. And also deleted entire sections of the article, such as the 'Recognition' section. I, and others, had also presented the same information he did in a less biased manner in the appropriate 'Layoffs' section. That was the reason for the wholescale deletion. I noted the issue in the discussion page. I tried to otherwise notify him but wasn't quite sure how. But don't worry about lifting the block. It will expire soon anyway, and I don't have any new info at the moment. The article looks decently balanced right now. In the future, I will just notify an adminstrator when someone engages in repeated vandalism as Lathaminfo did rather than reverting. Thanks again,


 * EdelJamie
 * I've unblocked your account. AGK 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the by, please add four tildes, not three, after your comments (like so: ) to sign them; using three only produces your signature, and yet time stamps are almost as useful! Thanks, AGK 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record - EdelJamie, accepting that it was by accident, but going through the logs shows you deleted about three quarters of the article in all. It was me, not Lathaminfo, who replaced any new cited entries in the 'notable' subheadings with the original text, as this was a reasonable way to get the article back.  It's not for someone else to have to both repair your accidental damage, AND re-apply any worthy edits you made susequently.   I hope you continue to contribute, but please take more care.  And use talk before making major or contentious changes.

Regards, --Jaymax (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will be more careful with future contributions, and if I have time to go back and (re)add the citations I will. Note, though, that I did put those entries there in the first place. I only added citations. I am not beholden to them, and don't think article will suffer so much if some of the probably (too many) notable attorneys are excised. EdelJamie (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)EdelJamie