User talk:Freeagentjd

March 2022

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Alternative facts have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss making edits to the page, try the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Muboshgu! Thanks for the heads up. Is there any chance you could be a bit more specific?

Re the Bar complaint

It took over an hour to track down and archive the original and amended Bar complaints and to research the current status of the Bar complaint. If the article is going to mention the Bar complaint at all, it seems highly relevant to at least inform the reader what, if anything, ever came of the complaint. Not to mention, the links to the Bar complaints were broken. I fixed them. But since the article has been reverted, the links are now broken. Furthermore, the article contained no citation or link to the D.C. Bar rule 8.4(c). I added one. The reverted article therefore lacks that citation to authority.

Re the Dan Rather Quotation Deletion

Dan Rather may be qualified to talk about a lot of things, but assessing credibility is likely not one of those things. Keeping the Rather quote would necessitate at least some mention of the fact that Rather is objectively unqualified to opine on this topic. To avoid too big of a sidetrack in the article, it made more sense to just remove the quote. With the Rather quote left in, the reader is left with the false impression that Rather is a clean slate.

What about either of those is not constructive? The edit was meticulous in its preparation and not frivolous in any manner. Freeagentjd (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 07:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For you eloquent and thorough analysis at Talk:Jussie Smollett. I can tell you put much work into your initial opinion and response. I can definitely tell you are an attorney. Keep up the good work! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Freeagentjd (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]