Gfwesq

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Gfwesq! Thanks for the weighing in over on the Breast implant article discussion. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Gfwesq, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey`

Right, 1) sorry if you think I was accusing you as being the same person as someone else, I was not, and I am sorry if I phrased my comments badly. 2) May I ask you do not question as many users on the Patrick Maxwell AfD, people are entitled to their vote, and as nice as it may be if they give a reason, they don't need to. Ian13/talk 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

The message is being sent to all those involved in the G. Patrick Maxwell editing dispute. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Please also note that this does not mean you have three reverts to use every 24 hours, and such deliberate attempts to work around the 3RR will also lead to action being taken. As a note, should I take action against anyone involved for reverting after this warning was given, all parties who have broken the rule will face equal punishment. Thanks! Ian13/talk 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

You know what that means. Midgley 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you so much for your suggestion on Frivolous litigation

You are great! I just modified the sentence. Please let me know whether it is OK. Thank you so much! --Neo-Jay 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Dolchstoßlegende edits

I saw your edits to this article today, and I have a friendly suggestion for you: try using the "show preview" and "show changes" buttons before saving your edits. That way you can make all your changes at once; it's easier for other editors to see what you've done, and you don't have to make lots of adjustments (say, if the wiki-syntax for links is unfamiliar). Thanks! And enjoy your coffee! :) -Phoenixrod 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Criteria on Jim Shapiro

Although the article smacks of POV, it's not entirely created to disparage its subject. Being WP:NN is something that you should express on it's [{WP:AFD]] page. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:

Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.

I don't see that as an attack.
However, going back into the history, this is presumably the version you object to. The things in this article are stated as factual events and indicative of the career and activities of this individual. If that is so, then it is an accurate article. If these things are made up, then obviously that is a serious matter. If these things are distorted, or exaggerated in the career of an otherwise reputable lawyer, then that also needs to be addressed. It may be a question of putting them into proper perspective. However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual. What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise. An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done. I am not making a pronouncement on this particular individual, because I have no knowledge of him. I am just drawing the distinction in principle.
Tyrenius 05:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro talk moved

Please note that I have moved the discussion on the Jim Shapiro article to Administrators Noticeboard as this is where it will get the required input. Tyrenius 05:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop now. Only post on WP:AN, not all of our talk pages. Also, please try not to modify other user's comments (even slightly), and to following the train of discussion. alphaChimp ^laudare 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding edits like this, please be civil and play nice. Thanks, Yanksox 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:jawesq and WP:SOCK

Please read advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. Somehow you and your spouse seem to find the same articles to edit, do the same reverts and edit warring, "vote"^{AfdIsNotAVote(TM)} the same way in AfDs, and give WP:3RR warnings to people for each others' edits. This may be viewed by some as a WP:SOCK violation, and I was trying to caution him of this so that neither of you get any problems due to it. He appears to choose to ignore the issue, and I hope his choice is the right one. Just concerned about any potential future trouble; I hope you are able to take it in the spirit in which it was offered and not get "insulted" and such (please see WP:AGF). Weregerbil 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Before Anyone Starts the WP:Sock Please Read. Thank you.

Please read advertising and soliciting meatpuppets.

I did awhile back and again recently.

Somehow you and your spouse seem to find the same articles to edit, do the same reverts and edit warring, "vote"AfdIsNotAVote(TM) the same way in AfDs, and give WP:3RR warnings to people for each others' edits.

This is not exactly true. We have collaborated on some things and some things we have not. In any event, that shouldn't matter. I gather you are not married. I think someday you will find that married couples often have common interests and common beliefs and positions. Is it that hard for you to believe that a couple, who are both lawyers, have common interests and common beliefs and positions? I don't think you get it. If we were not married, but were a couple of lawyers from different cities with similar interests, I doubt anyone would make anything of it. Wikipedians need to get over it. As I have been lectured by some admins that no rule is set in stone, I guess it applies to WP:Sock as well. In any event, I am not going to change my beliefs or my spouse over to satisfy some imaginary question of sock puppetry by some Wikipedians. Some folks are just going to have to read WP:AGF and apply it my case. That and learn how to examine writing styles. An examination of style should tell any intelligent reader that jawesq and I are not the same. There is only so much I can do for those incapable of that analysis.

I am not aware of the WP:3RR warning you keep citing. I did give someone a WP:3RR warning awhile back it is true. S/he was an instigator. If you followed the history, you would see that s/he had stated they read comments by jawesq and found them "emotional" and came to comment. Sounds like an instigator. Hard to credit with GF.

Its my observation in large firm/corporate politics, friendly warnings are not actually friendly. Despite this experience, I will view you message as WP:AGF.

And to all others this is my last word on the subject. Get over it. RespectfullyGfwesq 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jgwlaw has been blocked for 3 days

You are also mentioned. Please read carefully the report on AN/I. This is a final warning about your own behaviour in this regard, and if you continue as you have been, you will also be blocked. Tyrenius 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell 1997 court case

I have deleted the material relating to this. Do not reinstate it. This is not an editing decision. It is removed to protect the Foundation. I am currently having dialogue with OFFICE over this matter. Contact me if you wish to discuss it. Thank you. Tyrenius 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)