Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you shouldsign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk)00:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced orpoorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia aboutliving persons, as you did toTalk:James O'Keefe. Thank you.SarekOfVulcan (talk)00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced means SIX newspaper articles?http://www.northjersey.com/news/Okeefe.htmlhttp://www.bergendispatch.com/bergen/articles/862636/Harassment-complaint-against-Westwood-muckraker-James-O-Keefe-dismissed.aspxhttp://ncnc.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/23/9659717-harassment-complaint-against-westwood-muckraker-james-okeefe-dismissed-northjerseycomhttp://articles.courant.com/keyword/sexual-harassment/recent/2

Six newspaper articles saying "Case dismissed due to lack of cause"? Yes, that's poorly sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)01:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What's your point? Where did I say or imply it wasn't dismissed? I think the filing and its results should be mentioned on O'Keefe's article.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you shouldsign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk)02:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think me rude for saying this but you may as well let the issue go. Its extremely unlikely that you are going to get anyone at ANI to admit any sort of wrongdoing on the part of Sarek. Its not only extremely rare for an Admin to turn on another Admin its even less likely that they would do so for such a minor infraction. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk)02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but aggressive nature of his/her actions and false claim is distrubing.Apajj89 (talk)02:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, disturbing behavior is rampant in Wikipedia, there's no doubt about that. You have to remember, the people who edit in Wikipedia are typically very smart, almost nerdy and many, myself included have a certain social ineptitude that makes them somewhat iffy when dealing with people. For all the positive things about Wikipedia, an abundance of patience and welcoming, friendly behavior is not normally among them. --Kumioko (talk)02:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. If I can't even start a discussion about content, what's the point? It's like writing on sand. I can spend my time more productive elsewhere--anywhere.— Precedingunsigned comment added byApajj89 (talk •contribs)

You downplayed the dismissal of the charges, giving the impression that the accusations were dismissed, which violatesWP:BLP. You cannot deny that. That policy keeps getting linked for a reason. It's not because of some supposed cabal of admins, it's because anyone who manages to become an admin generally doesn't buck the site's guidelines and policies.Ian.thomson (talk)02:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you said you were leaving but if your still watching the page let me know what you are trying to do. I looked through a lot of the posts and it seems that most of the ones that have a problem just want the information to be even. After reviewing what you were trying to add it does seem slightly uneven. Maybe we can work out some verbiage that will meet community approval and help improve the article at the same time. Biographies of living people are a very hot topic here and have had a checkered history. Some editors get a little sensitive when they see what they perceive as a violation of BLP rules. --Kumioko (talk)17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]