User talk:TheManWithaFlan
Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to welcome you with a negative message, but you appear to be involved in an edit war on the article Operation Ore, trying to maintain your preferred version of the page. I've examined the article, and while I understand you have problems with the current version of the article, I've reverted your edits and restored it - it is more in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view than your version, which reads to me like partisan advocacy. The present version isn't perfect, but it sticks closer to what is said by the sources, and in general that's what we should do rather than coming up with our own interpretations.
I also have to warn you about the three revert rule - it is not permitted to 'revert' (undo another editor's changes) an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. You've come close to that already, so I'm warning you now that if you revert this article again, I will have to report you to an administrator. Rather than reverting, if you're still unhappy with the current version of the article, please discuss it on the talk page instead. That way you may be able to get a consensus for your preferred version; as it is, the consensus appears to be against you.
Thanks for reading, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page or use the {{helpme}} template. Happy editing. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again, and thanks for your message on my talk page. On closer inspection, I think you're right about the quotes being taken out of context. I've cut them out, reducing the information on this case to the minimum necessary (along with the speculative words 'perhaps final') - see [1]. I hope you agree that's an improvement - I'm trying to find a compromise that all editors can be happy with. Robofish (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
TheManWithaFlan - you appear to be part of the OBU Investigators forum who keep editing this Wikipedia article to propogate your unsupported conspiracy theories - please stop posting propoganda and removing reputable links to the Court of Appeal Judgement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis9999 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Nemesis 9999, so anyone who disagrees with your view point,is part of some pro-conspiracy group? Read the judgement - paragraph 5 states explicitly that the judgement is NOT to be viewed as making wider points concerning credit card fraud in relation to operation ore. Paragraph 37 then notes that whilst this is not considered in-depth in the judgement, experts do seem agreed that there was some degree of credit card fraud involved in the evidence used by Operation Ore more generally. How can you then justify puting a submission into Wiki suggesting that the court of appeal rejected credit card fraud as having contaminated the operation? Totally absurd, misleading and inaccurate. The quotes you offer had nothing to do with wider credit card fraud. They related purely to specific claims made by this individual appellant, concerning the disguising of an IP address. This was also a criminal appeal relating to one man's case. It was not a judicial review or a public inquiry as the appeal judges stress in paragraph 5 and allude to throughout the judgement. Please stick to the facts, and stop trying to personalise things. It could be misinterpreted as an attempt to intimidate those not sharing your personal view on an issue from contributing.
Please see the linked thread above. I have not mentioned any users by name but it concerns the current revert war in which you are engaged.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)