User talk:Thelogster

Hello Thelogster. I've reverted most of your changes on the Paul Diamond (lawyer) page, giving reasons in the edit summaries. Seeing as you're new to this, I won't expect you to get all the policies about NPOV straight away. I welcome the addition of the extra cases there. It's always good to have new people with legal expertise contributing to Wikipedia. It would be good to see you doing summaries of them too. As you may have noted there has been a strange interest in this page from unregistered users (one name who was blocked). Hopefully you aren't going to fall into the same traps as happened under those names. Wik idea 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. When you write a comment you can 'sign your user name' by clicking the little squiggle symbols below the text box for editting. As for new material, I think that if you find newspaper articles you can write something like "Times journalist Joe Blogger describes Diamond as xxxxx'. And for the lawyer of the week thing, I had that in there originally, but another registered user deleted it because it sounded like the page was a self promotion. Wik idea 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Paul Diamond (lawyer). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The "Christian Legal Centre" is not a reliable source of information on Paul Diamond. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned before about deleting material and pursuing personal analysis of this article. If you continue to delete material then I will continue to revert it, and you can complain all you want because you will not find any sympathy. And I really do not wish to hear any more of it. Wik idea 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Diamond (lawyer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Paul Diamond.[edit]

That's precisely why I locked down editing, so a discussion can take place. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]