User talk:RAKROD

Welcome!

Hello, RAKROD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Protonk (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsen v. Katzer

I made some superficial edits to Jacobsen v. Katzer in order to remove some bolded sentences and superfluous summaries you created. I appreciate the effort you are making in updating this page, but common wikipedia style doesn't use bolded sentence summaries or in-text suggestions to the reader beyond short pointers. Further reading is typically remanded to a section at the end, as are external links. I also haven't checked up on the sources you have added, but you should read our guidance on reliable sources and verifiability in order to determine that we are referencing reliable sources that a reader can independently verify (this doesn't mean that it needs to be free. Links to JSTOR or PACER are fine, so long as some chain of attribution exists).

Again thanks for your attention to the article. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the "bold" type to my attention.

RAKROD

Conflict of Interest

RAKROD, I thought you might be interested in looking into the conflict of interest section on Wikipedia (in particular the section on legal antagonists , since it has been revealed on the talk page that you are Katzer's brother. I appreciate your desire to get the facts straight, but I'm afraid that needs to be done by people that are not as close to the case as you, your brother and Jacobsen are. I'm going to be making many changes to the page in the next few days, and I hope they aren't reverted or edited by you. If they are, I will likely request a dispute resolution per the information here: Dispute_resolution, since verifying your edits has absorbed so much of my time already.

MJLISSNER:

You too are absorbing much of my time. I originally entered into refining this document to insert additional citable facts, remove any statements that are not properly cited WITHOUT significant modification to the author's original work. In other words, I did not erase any of the original work that was properly cited. You are removing insetions that are properly cited. I suspect this is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. My sole objective has been and continues to be to provide greater specificity with the proper citations. The insertions made by me have been factual, neutral and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

I suggest before you do any additional editing, you take the time to read the 370+ documents in order to familiarize yourself with the whole case. Your objective should be to expand the specificity and neutrality of this document and not obuscate the facts at large by removing previously cited facts.

FACTS AND DATES ARE THE FACTS AND DATES. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. YOUR INSERTIONS SHOULD BE VERY CLINICAL AND FULLY CITABLE.

Instead of removing citable facts you should be adding citable facts that helps clarify what is going on. Since you are a student, there is a fundamental honesty that you need to internalize and use for the rest of your life. This is an opportunity for you to approach this law suit very clinically. My expectation as a reader is that you would not delete citable facts but augment these facts with additional citable facts. You do wikipedia a dis-service by obsucating the facts through their removal. This brings into question your neutrality.

It's very important to have honesty in academia and remember, the facts are the facts and the dates are the dates.

RAKROD:

My apologies for absorbing your time, but if it makes you feel better, you too are absorbing mine. The reason I have removed facts is because facts usually need to be relevant to be in Wikipedia; removing facts therefore is not per se contrary to Wikipedia policy. While it's indeed important to have properly cited facts, many of the ones I removed were either:

extraneous in that they didn't contribute to the clarity of the article; or
dishonest in that they were part of Katzer's declaration, which, although indeed a court document, is not much better than a simple "he-said" fact.

I recognize your point regarding facts and dates, but the point of the article is to be general such that a lay person can understand it. It's not important that the arguments of the case be made via noting the various dates of the case.

Four other things:

Yes, I'm a student. No, that doesn't mean I need to learn honesty. I learned that long ago.
I find removing what I feel to be extraneous facts to be an honest activity, especially since I've noted my reasons all along the way.
I've never put anything in the article that I felt were dubious or dishonest. I've been very careful about that.
I haven't read the nearly 400 documents from this case, but I'd wager that I've read more of them than anybody else outside of the case itself.

In any case, lest this get out of control, I'm going to flag the article as a dispute, per my message above. I think it's time to bring in a third party so we can ease our worrying and personal back-and-forths.

Here's to hoping we can get it worked out. (mjlissner (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Below is the standard template with some info regarding this policy:

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jacobsen_v._Katzer, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. mjlissner (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]