User talk:Declaration1776

Welcome!

Hello, Declaration1776, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leeb

Regarding editing to Stephen Leeb's entry. Did not know that the charges were dropped. Will not be added again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon1234321 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining calmly your position. I am going to discuss this here before reverting since you are now at 3RR and I would not want to see you blocked for good-faith edits.

It doesn't seem undue to include it at all since it was a serious accusation and it is hardly the only part of the article. If indeed no wrongdoing was found, then that should be added to the article instead of deleting the whole thing. Dropping the charges doesn't mean the charges were never filed. You are infinitely more knowledgeable about the subject than I am (since I have no knowledge at all), so why don't you re-add that portion with a sentence or two explaining that the charges did not stick? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. There are several reasons why I think the section should be taken down completely.

First, I know the investment industry well, and accusations of this sort used to be thrown around all the time, often instigated by a firm's competitor's 'anonymous tips' to regulators, and usually amount to nothing. I obviously don't know that this was the case here; but I do know that a stand-alone accusation, absent a conviction, means nothing and should not merit inclusion. If the case were more high-profile than it was, perhaps that would make it worth mentioning, but that was not the case here. By contrast, even though OJ Simpson was found innocent, the trial should be mentioned in his page since it is of independent interest for all the media it generated, questions it raised about the justice system and race, etc.; but the accusation against Leeb does not merit inclusion on these grounds.

Second, this is a short biographical sketch of Leeb's career. Devoting an entire section to what is likely a baseless charge from years ago seems wrong; many people looking at the page might simply see the section header 'Investment Fraud' and not read the last sentence you propose adding explaining that the charges were dropped. I don't believe Wikipedia should be used to unnecessarily damage people's reputation in this way. In a situation like this, I think it prudent to err on the side of caution and simply remove the material, unless a better way of including it can be developed. At the very least, it should not be given its own section.

Third, I find it suspicious that the user Anon who added the material has only edited the Leeb page, simply to add and then re-add this one piece of mud-slinging material. He/she is obviously not acting in good faith, since they failed to include the article reporting charges were dropped and no wrongdoing was found. I don't believe Wikipedia should be used for personal attacks.

As you can see from my edit history, I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so I would defer to your more experienced judgement on this matter. However, please take my comments into consideration.

Thank you. Declaration1776 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Stephen Leeb shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rupert Sheldrake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)