User talk:86.129.139.97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to List of McGill University people has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Black edits

Your edits violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Such claims require sources. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons you would have seen a line that says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." That means that even if it is sourced in the Conrad Black article it also needs a source in every other article where it's mentioned. At the same time it must use neutral language.
So it's OK to say that he has been sentenced to 61/2 years for three counts of fraud and one count of obstructing justice because it can be referenced to the Globe and Mail, the BBC and no doubt others. However, what you can't do is add stuff like this without a source. And it's up to you to add the source not other people.
If you want to edit constructively on Wikipeida then I suggest that you look at some the other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. At the same time, based on "Anyway, I am going to keep a watch on you, and if you continue your conduct, them I am going to randomly go down your list of edits and reverse them. This is a warning to you - DO NOT JUST REVERSE EDITS ON ENTRIES WHICH YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF YOUR PREJUDICES.", you should also check out Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
If you persist in adding material that violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons then you will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conrad got convicted of fraud. He's a convicted felon. Just because not every article puts it in those words does not mean that it cannot be reported as such in Wikipedia. But to portray him as a "businessman" is absurd - the guy has no business these days. He's broke, controls no companies, has been convicted of numerous felonies, and the felonies were literally for "fraud" - he swindled his shareholders. I really find it difficult to fathom why you are angry about listing Conrad Black as such. I have found many Wikipedia busy-bodies don't like to see people listed as crooks or whatever. In particular, I have found that Wikipedia busy-bodies (such as yourself) don't like to have a section for "Criminals". For example, I have tried many times to insert a "Criminals" section in the Wiki listing for the fraternity Pi Kappa Alpha, but to no avail - too many Pi Kappa Alpha alumni will not allow it. But for an example, take a look at the "Criminals" section of Tufts University Alumni:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tufts_University_people

Now THAT is a healthy Wikipedia entry. It is unfortunate that people such as yourself do not want any negative appelation attached to Conrad Black, but the fact is, Black is a convicted felon, he was literally convicted of multiple counts of "fraud", for swindling his shareholders, and he made a HUGE mistake by giving up his Canadian citzenship - that alone has come back to haunt him because he therefore not serve his sentence in a Canadian prison and is therefore not eligible for parole as he would be in Canada - under U.S. federal prison rules, he is going to have to serve 85% of his sentence. "Former Canadian citizen" is a key part of his biography. But you probably don't know this because, like so many Wikipedia busy-bodies, you just go around reversing edits on subjects that you know nothing about. Do us all a favour and stop vandalising entries that you know nothing about. It is people like you that ruin Wikipedia as being a serious source for facts - it is because of people like you that Wikipedia is known as place where you can just get basic information but never any negative information.

I really don't care if there is a list of criminals in any given article. Nor do I care if Conrad Black is listed as being convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice. If you want to change the listing at UCC for him that is fine but the wording must be neutral and it must be sourced. What you can't do is this. When you add that sort of wording you are vandalising and violating WP:BLP. By the way I know all the stuff about him that you keep spouting off about. Frankly it's people like you who can't maintain an NPOV that help to spoil Wikipeida. I don't care for Black but I keep my opinions to myself and try and edit in neutral manner. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have broken the three revert rule at Upper Canada College. This is a courtesy warning. If you revert again within 24 hours, you will be reported. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at List of McGill University people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RRX2

Warning

You have reached your three revert limit at Upper Canada College. This is a courtesy warning. If you revert again within 24 hours, you will be reported. --G2bambino (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Black

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.