The_Yes_Men

Pretending to be a corporate officer when you are not is fraud. 206.124.6.222 (talk)

If you can't reference a conviction of fraud against The Yes Men you cannot add it to the article. Wikipedia is not a place to present you personal opinion. WP:OR (This is a spa. The purpose might not be to talk to IPs.) Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your deleted comment you said that fraud is not an opinon. That is true, most jurisdictions have a clear definition of fraud. But in the article you did not say The Yes Men did fraud you said they did something fraudulently. That is an opinion, not a fact. Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Yes Men. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spa. The purpose might not be to violate the three-revert rule. Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud is Fraud

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=yes+men+fraud&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 173.139.90.196 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good example why links to search engine results are not useful, they change over time. Better use links to primary sources. Even they might change. Currently there is no single article about fraud. Only fraudulent is used. As of today Yes Men page does not use the word anywhere and only one source article has it in its title - in quotes. Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]