User talk:209.124.40.183

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Mike Cox. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anas talk? 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Cox, you will be blocked from editing. —LOL 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the criticism section of Mike Cox’s article, please take it up to Talk:Mike Cox so that it can be discussed with other editors. Until then, please don’t just delete an entire section that contains news sources. —LOL 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer Wikipedia:General disclaimer and WP:LEGAL. —LOL 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Cox, you will be blocked from editing. —LOL 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.--Wafulz 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand you don't want negative statements in the Mike Cox article, but it is not supposed to be a partisan site. I thought the info on the affair was vague so I added another source. It appears Cox admitted to having an affair after Fieger attempted to blackmail him. That info was not on the page. This never would have been brought up if it had not been for the decision in Charlevoix. It made state and nationwide attention which is where the affair was brought up. I agree blogs are not good sources unless verifiable. I'm sure a Democrat added the critisism, but since it is verifible with notable attention it is not necessary to delete at this point. These pages are edited by both sides of the spectrum, but I agree there seems to be more editors swinging to the left. I uploaded a photo of Mike Cox and a few months later some moron deleted it. There was nothing wrong with it. That's how it goes here sometimes. Jjmillerhistorian 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)