User talk:R781721841

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brayton Purcell, 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.

Not only did Brayton Purcell lie to the court, but you, who many people may assume to represent Brayton Purcell, lied in your edit summary when you removed this content, as both the Wall Street Journal and the Legal Intelligencer sources clearly do say that the firm lied. Such attempts at whitewashing can only serve to damage Brayton Purcell's reputation even further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to see the court document(s) that say the firm and/or it's partners "lied"; otherwise, it's just the interpretation of what two journalists said. Just because two entities say it, doesn't make it the truth. R781721841 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)R781721841
 * There's no interpretation involved: the two articles cited explicitly use the word "lied" in reporting what the judge ruled, and both are published in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)