User talk:Alygx026
Kansas, in a recent post to my talk page, you stated:
"Your information is accurately sourced but it presents information that does not flow well in the article."
You then removed my changes based on your belief that my information does not "flow well." I believe the format I have used is fine and that, contrary to what you have stated, it does "flow well."
Would you like to mediate our differences? If not, then we well have to have them arbitrated. Please let me know so that we can proceed accoringly.
Thanks, Alygx (129.174.229...)
Lebow talk page
[edit]Please see the Lebow talk page for a discussion of this problem. JodyB talk 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- After completion the Checkuser request and appropriate blocking of persons involved, the page protection is now removed. JodyB talk 18:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Kansas7474, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. macy 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please exlain how a request to mediate is not a "constructive edit". I am required to ask Kansas7474 if he/she would like to proceed to meditation before arbitration. I am sorry if I placed it in the wrong place on the page, I have moved it to the place under the heading "bennett lebow" for more accuracy, but if I placed it in the wrong position, I can hardly see how this qualifies as not "being constructive". Please explain.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bennett S. LeBow. 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. JodyB talk 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)'
Alygx026
Earlier you stated that the original Bennett LeBow article portrayed Mr. LeBow in only a positive light and that he is undoubtedly a controversial public figure. The new article is now full of negative facts, that clearly outweigh any positive light that was included in the originial article. Why are you just adding negative facts. Please explain. Why is Bennett S. LeBow your only contribution to Wikipedia? Do you have personal hatred for this person?
Please explain
Kansas
Bennett LeBow
[edit]Alygx026 -
Thanks for your question. I tried to rework the text on this controversial "criticism" section. Frankly, I don't think a massive section on these criticisms is consistent with Wikipedia's norms for bios of living people but my changes have largely left this in tact. You are talking about a businessman in the tobacco industry. All things considered his track record has some past issues but nothing particularly scandalous. I think the current depiction lays out the facts in a concise and objective fashion.
Also, I thought this section was excedingly dense, difficult to read and unclear. For your purposes, I don't think this is even effective. That is why i shrank massive paragraphs into more digestable items.
The quotes you want to include are really (i) less relevant than you are making out and (ii) taken from a context that is not fully shown in the article. I also think the use of these quotes is disproportionate relative to the amount of real content. I noticed you had a few quotes that were not easy to understand what you were trying to say. I would encourage you to leave this section materially as is and would challenge the neutrality of any quotes you add. If you or the other users editing this page over the last few months are merely trying to grind an axe one way or the other, I think wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for this.
Also:
- Please note that your last edit to the page left open a <ref> tag which had the effect of erasing the bottom of the page
- Please sign your posts using ~~~~