User talk:Kate Jackson

September 2011
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Arkansas Rampage, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tom Danson (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It surely won't happen again as long as the Arkansas Rampage individual that has been, as you put it, "adding libel and defamatory content" to other team's Wiki pages, stops. And tell Randall Fields the same thing.
 * Where is your proof that they have been doing that? Unless you have some solid proof, there is nothing I can tell him. Tom Danson (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the history for another team - Kansas City Storm. I've worked with that team for several years and am quite qualified to update the information on the team. Several users affiliated with the WSFL, the Storm's previous league (obvious by the edits that they do) continue to add libel and defamatory content to the team's page. The latest is by an IP address in Fort Smith, AR - near where the Arkansas Rampage - a member of the WSFL - is based. I've been very patient with the antics, look at the number of "undos". Wikipedia won't lock the content for the Storm's page. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.130.160 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just let them know that this content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. They'll get it. Also, regarding "I am quite qualified to update the information on the team," please try reading WP:OWN to check Wikipedia's policy.  Thank you. Tom Danson (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

What exactly did you you say to them? It hasn't stopped them at all. I know I don't "own" the page but I am quite aware of the team and facts surrounding it. I'm also quite aware that they are grinding an ax. Their content is libel (can absolutely be proved) and of course defamatory (as well as untrue, which also can be proved). Yet you flagged my comments, which I stand behind as absolutely true (and can be proved). Why the double standard?

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Kansas City Storm shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Zappa  O  Mati   21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)