User talk:67.177.35.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This message is regarding the article Jeff Merkey. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 66.30.254.82 02:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

From JMERKEY: It is not vandalism to remove copyrighted materials. The Novell/TRG ruling is a sealed document and the only known published version is a Copyrighted work from the US Patent Quarterly Journal which was copied by Pamela Jones and posted to the internet illegally. I will remove this copyrighted material every time I see it posted.

First, please see Copyright problems on how to properly deal with what you believe to be copyright violations. Don't expect people to accept that something is a copyright violation just because you say so. Second, you are mistaken. Court rulings in the United States are not copyrighted, regardless of whether they are sealed or published. They are all in public domain. Third, even if the ruling were copyrighted, it wouldn't be copyrighted by you. Exabit 05:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is not "vandalising" the article Jeff Vernon Merkey. Content disputes are not vandalism. If you want to bring the issue of the content up, add it into the talk page. Do not falsely accuse other users of vandalism. — JIP | Talk 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If he disputes the content then he should not be reverting edits and removing content of other users. He can add his content and the two can be verified with the cited sources. 67.177.35.211 06:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD

An AFD does not need to be over before you edit a page... in fact, it is encouraged that you rewrite a page as to bring it up to article standard while an AFD is in progress. Sasquatcht|c 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Essjay double standard

Editing Free Speech is not vandalism with a clearly identified section titled "criticisms of the policy". You failed to follow policies and failed to warn or revert. Also, are you a native cherokee speaker? 67.177.35.211 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I could respond with a thoughtful and detailed critique of the factual inaccuracies and legal leaps of faith presented by the so-called "criticism," but I really don't want to waste my time writing a response that won't get thorough any better than the original essay did. So, instead, I'll just increase your block, sprotect this page, and level up to Level 6 Rogue admin. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)