User talk:Maxschmelling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Translation

Just how notable is Jody Byrne? She has no Wikipedia article. Too many references and links to her work may violate WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Spam. I didn't see all that many references to her when I googled her name and occupsation (translator?) Dreadstar † 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your most excellent response, and you did indeed place it in the correct location! I'm wondering why Eurominuteman is consistently trying to add Jody to various articles, it looks like linkspam to me and almost as if he has a COI going. Dreadstar † 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am the "infamous" J o d y - B y r n e and to be honest I'm sick of seeing my name being bounced around on Wikipedia over the past number of months. I have no idea why eurominuteman has such a fixation on my article or for that matter why there is such resistance, and dare I say resentment, to my article from other people here. I personally would prefer it if you would all stop mentioning my name. It's not nice when you run a search in Google and see all of these references to pages where people are having hissy-fits over my article. I don't care what interpretations (correct or otherwise) people come up with in relation to my work. What makes it worse is that people have the temerity to question my credentials or to infer that there is some conflict of interest or other link between myself and eurominuteman. Let me make this absolutely clear - I do not know this person, nor do I want to. Similarly, I do not want to be referenced in your Translation article in view of its current content and focus. I would respectfully request that you delete all references to my name from your talk pages, drafts and discussions etc. (including this one when you have read it).

Incidentally Dreadstar, I am not a female so don't let the name confuse you and there are quite a few references (590+ at last count) to me on the Internet including academic affiliations, publications, editorial boards and conference papers.

Regards, Dr J. Byrne

(Check my IP address to confirm my identity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.26.91 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurominuteman report

I changed the versions to diffs and added the previous version reverted to. It's best to have the diffs. Dreadstar † 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've never had to report anybody before! maxsch 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You did good! I would have blocked him myself, but I was too involved...it was very, very tempting...<sigh>Dreadstar † 07:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia, MO wikiproject invite

 Hello, I noticed you've made edits to Columbia, Missouri articles or that you are in some way connected to The City of Columbia. I thought you might want to become a member of the Columbia WikiProject. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Me5000 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] awfully quick to add cleanup tag

The True/False Film Festival page I created was not yet a minute old when I see a note saying "clean it up." I acknowledge that it is not a very substantial article yet, but how about starting with a friendly "hey thanks for going to the trouble of creating this article about a notable film festival in Missouri" before telling me it sucks. yours, maxsch 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the cleanup tag means. It means that the article is in need of work, and notify other editors to this fact. It is intended to speed up editing. If I have given offense, I apologize. Michaelbusch 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Translation. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ThePurpleMonkey(talk•contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Translation

Sorry about the confusion, I know I jump the gun sometimes, and just click the button without thinking first.

Sorry again,

ThePurpleMonkey(talk•contribs) 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Translation" merger proposal

You might wish to comment here about Kannie's plan to merge "Translating for legal equivalence" back into the "Translation" article. (Kannie is a self-avowed "mergist.") Nihil novi (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words without rhymes

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of English words without rhymes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you consider taking a look

at "Bolesław Prus"? This biography of a novelist which I have contributed to, has been nominated for Good Article status, in the category of "Literature." Though the article has been accepted for release versions of Wikipedia (under "Literature: Writers and critics—Europe"), the Good Article nomination has been put "on hold," pending review by an editor not involved in the article's production. So far, no one has taken up the challenge: I suspect, because the subject is essentially new to the English-speaking world, though two of this writer's novels have each been translated into twenty languages, including English.

I was not the person who nominated this article for Good Article recognition. But now that it has been nominated, it would seem a good idea to bring the matter to a conclusion. Criticisms that might improve the article, would be welcome. If you are unable to take this up yourself, perhaps you know someone who would be willing?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and insightful suggestions regarding the "Bolesław Prus" article. As you will see, I've used all your suggestions. Nihil novi (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolesław Prus

Hello Maxschmelling. Thank you for your suggestions. They were really helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Florentino floro

It seems that Ian can't handle the adoption well. I won't blame him for that since he only did so out of goodwill even if he isn't experienced enough to do so. I would handle the adoption myself but I'm not exactly tutor material and it seems that Mr. Floro wouldn't listen to Filipino editors. I helped the guy myself but my patience is also wearing thin. Could you help find a non-Filipino adopter? I don't think he would to listen to me if I recommend adoption myself. Anyways the future adopter can use the rules I set here. --Lenticel (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what I could do. Maybe we should give Ian a little more time. When I went to his userpage recently it said he is taking a break during his exams, so perhaps when he gets back he will become more involved. As far as making suggestions, I'm not sure Florentino wants to hear it from me at this point, even though I'm not Filipino, I have challenged his edits in the past and I am probably not perceived as neutral. I do think your rules are useful--it just doesn't seem to me that Ian and Floro have even talked. maxsch (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait for further developments, perhaps a month or so. March is the "hell month" for students as most school projects and the last final exams are set here so I know how Ian feels. Should the adoption go sour, I think we need to contact a neutral party in WP:ADOPT.--Lenticel (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm now back from my Wikibreak and I'm now out to help out my adoptee as of now. My exams are done and hopefully, you can lessen your critisism. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not I who suggested adoption, but an editor. When I agreed, I set a term: non-Filipino editor. I am not against iaNLOPEZ, since he never bothered me. But due to his schooling, he was not able to guide me on my mistakes. So, I reiterate, I prefer a foreign or non-Filipino editor to be my adopter. Wiki rules can be used and abused by all those Filipino editors who deleted my 2 articles. May I ask if I am allowed to be adopted by a non-Filipino adopter, so that I can freely and objectively air my side and be taught well how to edit. - --Florentino floro (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think my talk page is the place to discuss these issues. As far as I know, you are allowed to be adopted by anyone who wishes to adopt you. I hope no one is against anyone and certainly not for reasons of nationality. maxsch (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Notice is hereby SERVED of the pending Petition filed against you.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my Edits on Filipino Article

When my 2 articles on Wikipedia were deleted, I fought but lost and I accepted the defeat: however I submitted or proferred Wikipedia's Psalm 109 and Psalm 73, which I did, do recite and will recite until my last breath, reciting at midnights all the names of those who voted for the deletions, (especially last Good Friday, 3pm and 12 noon) as sole personal defense for the sake of truth. It was so efficacious that - I begged my counsel of record Rene Saguisag (on the 2nd floor of Makati hotel last August 29, 2006), to help me beg a job from Corazon Aquino, since I failed from Raul M. Gonzalez, Pryde Henry Teves' Margarito Teves, inter alia; I was elated yesterday when most of my contributions I sincerely and scholarly contributed were beautifully edited by you in the same manner of deletions with great rationality as I read in the edit summary. I know that Filipino crab mentality hunted my judicial career since I was suspended on July 20, 1999 and now my Wikipedia career is in the same manner well surrounded. I understand your dire predicament, and I sincerely know that you are here to have a good recognition of your EGO (as Heidegger and Kant taught us that it must be recognized amid life's pains). I learned a lot from your messages, and I take it as part of my life, since I had included you in my spiritual prayers when I am usually at trance midnights. I am very sorry, that I cursed Ateneo law school 1982, '83 and 84, since I never learned anything from my alma mater, except to spam. Now, I committed many mistakes, and most Filipino editors had a hard time according to them, deleting my edits. Fine, and I have no regrets. If the past would be re-written, I will instead enroll in the best school in our country: San Fernando Pampanga Harvard Law School, where Fr. Eddie Panlilio is well respected. Ateneo failed me, and my English is so bad that I was banned in some foreign forums, since foreigners decided that I was spammer when my English language was so perfect. Here In Wikipedia, I cannot learn, my English is so bad; I cannot even contribute an edit that will be desired by many Filipino editors. But my edits in other foreign articles are well guarded and never deleted by genius Filipino editors. I hope that someday I will be as intelligent as you, so that all Filipino editors will live happily ever after. Yes, I have no 7 dwarves, only 3, however, they will be happy if I learn more from you. Please send me more messages in my talk page so that I will be more educated before I am banned here. A final word. May my 3 world famous dwarves LUIS, Armand and Angel guard your loved ones and flash the violet light of truth midnights. Amen. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musings

Hi, I am so amused when I opened you contributions: you took great interest in my style and frequency of editing; these 2 days, I am in a rush to file a motion for reconsideration of a civil case, hence, I could not contribute more ... our discussions and debate far from uncivil, might be a good vehicle to expand and improve Wiki and revise the rules to conform to its policies; but I sent you a message here, since, I desire to remind you that IN TIME when you would bow down from this planet or up/on this encyclopedia, you would leave footprints and future readers would desire too, to view your user pages, to see who you really were; I myself, as Daniel Radcliffe bared all, I did expose even the dilapidated house which I rented since 1989, on YouTube, my 23 documentaries here, on Philippine TV[2]; this is not a grim reminder of passing off of earthly matters, but I want you to share you life, pics, and bare all for us and all future users. It is a good idea, since I warned all Supreme Court Justices here to bare all, and hide nothing, for it is the best medicine to cancer, caused by fear; in short, please edit you user page. Thanks and Regards. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Orobanchaceae. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Duly referenced new genera have their place in Wikipedia JoJan (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know this is a template you use, but you might have noticed that I did, in fact, put a reason in the edit summary and discuss the edit in the talk page. Yes, duly referenced genera have their place, but as had already been mentioned by another editor in that talk page, this is not usually the place. It may have been a little bit of an overreaction for me to delete the whole section, but once the new species has been officially named I hope you will remember to go back to Orobanchaceae and remove the text that you put back in. maxsch (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Florentino floro's petition to ban you

Just wanted to let you know the Florentino floro has asked for you to be banned on my talk page. You can defend yourself if you wish. [3]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied there. maxsch (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please rebut, contradict and traverse my 3 specific accusations submitted against you, on: Drugs, on University of the Philippines (on 2008 Charter), and Orobanchaceae. As co-equal editor, I am entitled to hear your evidence on these 3, inter alia. Please be guided accordingly. Further, in my quest for truth and justice, I state that I am a closed Catholic, and under USA/other Constitutions, and International Treaties, my religious beliefs are protected, as atheists or skeptics are also allowed to not believe in God. Please do not evade the squarely raised issues, by citing unsubstantiated motives of mine to edit Wikipedia by vengeance on jurists. Due process of law requires us co-equal editors to assume good faith, and to prove otherwise by competent evidence, if you would accuse me of violation of rules. - --Florentino floro (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are those accusations? The reasons for my behavior on those 3 pages are clearly stated in the comments I had already made in those talk pages [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Note that I made no changes to the San Diego State University page. maxsch (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If maxsch correctly and not uncivilly edited my contributions, and if only the above-submitted examples or specifics of my contributions are violative of Wiki rules, why is this user, the only one editing, reverting and continuously deleting my edits? Daily, this user concentrates on all my daily contributions. Even a non-lawyer/laymam would easily find and conclude that there is a hidden agenda (badges of fraud) of this user to be a virtual stalker, dummy, alter or the like, to destroy my contributions. He is so uncivil to his fellow editors. Vide the above harsh words thrown at this user by a veteran editor (shame on you; planet are you). Finally, this user miserably failed to contradict, rebut and traverse my above-submitted evidence versus his stay here. On the contrary, this user would again resurrect by detailing or enumerating my past edits, failing to assume good faith. Premises considered, maxsch is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of utter violation of Wikipedia rules, and is hereby recommended to be banned or be placed under indefinite suspension. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul McCartney

How dare you delete a sentence with a reference?

You wrote: (supporting Everton is not a significant element of McCartney's lifestyle) with a reference?...

McCartney is also a known supporter of Everton Football Club.[1]

Shame on you.--andreasegde (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In your words: "description of divorce hearing is not necessary"

Which planet are you living on?--andreasegde (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you just left a very unfriendly note. It was so absurdly confrontational, in fact, that I am inclined to take it as irony. Yet you revert. Hmmm. And, you seem to claim that this edit [11] of mine was inappropriate. I beg to differ. There is plenty of text on the Heather Mills divorce case here, and now we get the play-by-play of a 30-second hearing in which nothing really happened. Do you have any idea how many hearings there are in a contested divorce case? There is no way we need details of all of them. As for the bit about Everton [12], I'm not going to edit war over it, but do you really believe it to be the case that his support for Everton is really as significant as the rest of the "Lifestyle" section? Yes it had a reference, but having a reference does not satisfy notability. maxsch (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not English are you? For anybody in the UK, which team you support is almost a religous faith. If you ever get the chance to vist Liverpool or Manchester (or anywhere really) I suggest you stand in the middle of pub on a Saturday night and say that football is not notable...

As for your complaints about what I said; I think that they were not insulting enough, because you deleted a referenced sentence. That is tantmount to vandalism, or blind stupidity in Wikipedia. What makes you think references are not notable enough, and that they can be deleted? The arrogance of it...

The judge's ruling vindicated McCartney from Mills' lies about him cutting her with a wine glass and letting her crawl to the bathroom. If Mills' was proven to be a liar, I think that is notable enough. Would you think it was not notable if someone said that about you? I think you would..--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Which planet? Shame on you? These words are not enough to put off the disruptive and bad faith editing of this user maxsch. This user had continuously edited by deleting most of my scholarly added edits. Something must be done to this user. What do editors think? Examine please his contributions: [13] Almost 90% of my edits are reverted or deleted by him. And I filed a petition to ban him but my adopting parent ceased to be an adopter. So Please watch all his edits. Let us join force against his bad faith editing. My 3 mystic dwarfs appeared to me and told me to pray Psalm 109 so that this user will be good and not bad. Please, I beg of you andreasegde --Florentino floro (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove any content that talked about accusations of lying or crawling around on a bathroom floor. I removed the description of a 30-second hearing that neither party attended and at which no issues of any substance were raised. The description of a formality--not interesting, not necessary. And again, I didn't say that there are no rabid football fans in the UK. I agree it is like a faith to some. Maybe Sir Paul is one of them. But my sense is that he would not attack someone in a pub for saying football isn't that important. If I found a reference that said he was fond of tea, or had a small collection of oddly shaped foreign currency, would you think that belonged at the top of the section about his lifestyle? I was actually trying to keep the article clean and in good shape. I thought that was a goal you shared. maxsch (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where else would you put it, I ask? In Recreational drug use, Meditation, or Activism? Maybe we could make a new header like, "Things McCartney does on a Saturday afternoon when he's not writing songs". If his choice of football club is not important, then we can take out all the stuff about his mother dying of breast cancer, where The Quarrymen rehearsed, about him going to nightclubs in The Beatles' section, Jane Asher (maybe one single sentence, huh?) calling himself "Apollo C. Vermouth" to produce a hit record, the "You're all pizza and fairytales!" comment by Lennon, "McCartney and Lennon had seriously considered going to the studio, but were too tired", "This led to a disagreement with Denny Laine, who wanted to continue touring", "George was like his 'baby brother'".

Where do you want to stop? Maybe you can delete enough so that it looks like a train timetable. Would that satisfy you? I despair... --andreasegde (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: If people put down their scissors, and actually worked on creating articles and actually adding text to them, they wouldn't be so keen to start snipping things out. It's probably because the cutters are bored stiff, and feel the need to do what they do. They sit in their editor's chairs and proclaim that they are only here to clean articles. The fact that they are not interested in the subject, don't know an awful lot about it, and can only view it through a pair of binoculars makes for comments like these. I have created, and/or helped with 31 GA articles about The Beatles, and a few other random articles. How many have you done, and taken to GA? Put the scissors away, buy a book, and start writing. This is what Wikipedia needs.--andreasegde (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I took a question I had about content on the Paul McCartney page, and I put it on the talkpage. There is nothing wrong with that kind of behaviour. No one is questioning the importance of football in British society. I am only questioning its importance in Paul's life/lifestyle. If the consensus opinion is that it is an important part of his life, I will not protest. But don't question my right to ask the question. maxsch (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to question your edits, but research the subject first before you declare that something is not important. I would never edit an article before I knew something about it.

Anyway, after this little problem, we could probably become good friends (seriously) because we now have an attitude of respect for each other. It happens all the time in Wikipedia; ask Kodster or Realist2. BTW, I wish you the best. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got a funny way of making friends, but so be it. I don't hold a grudge. One of my pet peeves about wikipedia is all the crap clutter that people put in articles because they have a personal interest in some little trivial factoid, and maybe it made the news one slow political day. And most of it ends up just staying there because nobody ever bothers to take it out. I'm one of those people who bothers, and maybe that's just a difference in our editing styles. best. maxsch (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your style of editing, Please review the Rules

Please ask the editor who fairly and correctly delivered the right homily to you. The problem is not with me and the other editors. The core issue is you style of editing. It is very negative, disruptive and makes Wikipedia very unreliable. First, your editing, by reverting and deleting with submission of false and bad faith reason demonstrating badges of vendetta, fraud towards vandalism, in the edit summary, is a virtual contempt and insult on the intelligence of co-equal editors. That is negative karma, and a virtual biblical curse per our and democratic spiritual and religious beliefs. Premises considered, your argument and stance is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. What will you gain or profit, by the such your modus operandi, scheme, habit, system and style of editing? Nada. None. Nothing. It will be a vicious circle of your editing by reverting, then, homily or like yesterday, insulting words by a very good and honest editor, thereafter, reverting by editors and by myself. All you need is therapy, which I can provide you in yahoo messenger. What is your personal problem. Please learn how to be a good Wikipedia editor. It is for your own good, lest you be into perdition like my lawyer Rene Saguisag, who attacked not myself but my religious beliefs. May you find peace in your troubled mind. I suggest you travel to Iraq or China and Burma. You need fresh blood transfusion to enkindle your kindness of ... if you have one. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I hereby serve you this notice of my complaint against you with my parent.[14] --Florentino floro (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neptune statue

Please never threaten me of reporting me, as well-respected editor who contributed more than 3,700 edits here of edit warring. It is unfair and personal attack, against Wiki rules. I protest your threat: I issued the ruling, and I hereby notify your about this Neptune article, by quoting to you my reply and 7 reasons for denial of your baseless message:"DENIED for lack of merit. Reasons of my RULING: First, the article is about Neptune (mythology). What is the meaning of mythology? Well, in layman's terms, it is about the Greek's culture, specifically on their religious beliefs on Gods, like Athena, and here, Neptune. Like us, Filipinos, we have idols, like the Rice God, Bul-ol, Bathala, Anito, etc., all considered by our history as culture, religion and folklore and mythology. Second, the discovery was treasure, for it was reported part of the treasure trove, and is not only NOTABLE, but one of the rarest find ever, as far as the bare and like-stub article at bar. Third, your citing of links on other statues are not only irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the discussion, since the pivotal issue, is only the notability and propriety of adding the treasure discovery of the statue of Neptune to this article. Why? So what if there other statues or millions of them? Here in Philippines you can find millions of statues of anitos, bul-ol etc. in Baguio, but Neptune's treasure discovered statue, as the report stated, is so rare in terms of time, place and events. Fourth, why don't you discuss in the talk page of the article, the links and citations of other Neptune statues, so that other editors can rebut me or you, for a better and more intellectual discussion of the issue. Fifth, you had been here in Wikipedia, just to edit or revert my scholarly and well-researched contributions, amid other editors disgust upon your method and agenda. Sixth, you never created an article nor had you, like us editors who spent long hours of research to create articles and add edits, we, aired frustration, disgust and were most perturbed by your disruptive editing. Seventh, why are you threatening me, a well-respected editor who had more than 3,700 edits, of editing warring? What is your basis? I spent and wasted lots of time to work for Wikipedia, and then, by reverting or amending your edits, to cure the defects of your bad faith editing, of your stubborn refusal to read the rules, to read carefully the links like in University of the Philippines and lots of articles where I contributed and you reverted without any valid ground. Please read carefully Wiki rules on edit warring and assume good faith. Please be guided accordingly, since I have a pending petition to ban or suspend you. I leave all these matters to my adopting parent, since daily I am currently submitting tons and hard evidence that a) you do not contribute by creating any article nor adding any edit, but b) you solely revert, delete or take off my and your fellow-editors' edits, only to be regularly reverted by us. All rights reserved, none waived." --Florentino floro (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libel case

DENIED for utter violation of Wiki Rules, specifically: [15] "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)." Why should you remove or delete my contribution, on the controversy case? I had been here and contributed more than 3,700 edits. I had hundreds of experiences on editing legal controversies of Presidents, Senators, and actors, Philippines and abroad. When you removed the controversy about these actors, just because it was settled, dismissed or otherwise terminated, that is against Wiki rules of neutrality. You are making it appear that the article's subject actor had no case. Besides, you are not a lawyer. I am, and here in the Philippines, like in USA, like this one I edited Same-sex marriage in California‎, the decision is not final until after the lapse of 30 days. And in this case, P 12 million libel suit, is very notable, and removing it would be like in the case of Queen Beatrix and Vatican who were caught by the Wiki scanner of editing their own articles. The RTC had not even acted on the Motion by the parties Lolit, Sam and Milby, since the Public Prosecutor must sign the conformity. I myself was fined P 40,000 because of a similar accusation alleging the Prosecutor had not confirmed the parties settlement. So, the case is not yet finished. And even if finished it must stay since the sources I submitted are reliable. You are misleading the discussion by citing the fact of tabloid. The libel was published in the tabloid, but the case and its current events were not reported by me per tabloid but by top verifiable links. You continously violated the Wiki rules. I have to revert this to preserve the neutrality of the article. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florentino floro v. Maxschmelling

Hello, Maxschmelling. You have new messages at Diligent Terrier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Big Brown

Why did you delete the video on the 2nd Win of Brown at Preakness without even knowing that the 2nd win was the 2nd jewel of the trio: kentucy, preakness and Belmont on June 7. This is already intentional and bad faith plus wrong edit on your part. Why redundant? Kentucky is the first, this is the 2nd. Please study horse racing first, I am in this sport since 1972. This user in bad faith removed this link due to alleged redundancy, without even looking at the video: the You tube link is the only link about the 2nd leg of the T. crown, while the first link I added last time was the Kentucky derby, the first jewel. This editor does not even know that there are 3 parts of the Triple Crown, the last will be on June 7 at Belmont: 20:45, 19 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Big Brown‎ (→External links: rem redundant video link and news link per WP:external links) I have to re-add it. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)