Talk:Fred Baron (lawyer)

message: # I have not represented myself as two or three different editors.  That is unwarranted and insulting. 
# Yes, I refuse to have this article turn into the hit piece it initially was - probably your writing, if I look back.  Unlike you, I don't have the time to try to find something you said 6 months ago or more.  
# I am no longer going to respond to your ridiculous accusations.  If you want to mediate, by all means do so.  Cheers!Jance 05:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The record will reflect that "MollyBloom", "jgwlaw", "Jance", and 67.35.126.14 are the same person, and that Gfwesq is her husband. To that extent, Jance is correct that she has not represented herself as "two or three different editors," since there are at least four different identities on this talk page alone. -- TedFrank 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP

message: Jance/jgwlaw/MollyBloom asked me to edit the page, and then simply reverted 8230 words without any justification or discussion, despite the fact that I even acceded to his unreasonable demand that I not cite either Reason or Overlawyered.  My edits were well-documented (citing four law review articles, several newspaper articles, and a Senate Report).  Worse yet, he also deleted the POV tag.  This is not a good faith edit on the part of Jance/jgwlaw/Mollybloom. -- TedFrank 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued NPOV violation through sanitization 

message: Why don't we start with a short section and discuss it here, before making massive edits and overwhelming the article with criticism?  That is not NPOV. Let's start with the law review, and when it was published.  Then we can look at what the real point is, rather than a  long diatribe.  If there are legitimate articles about the man, let's discuss it.   Jance 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jance I tried discussing this with you.  Your only proposal so far is to revert and delete everything and remove the POV tag, delete my talk page edits, and leave insulting comments like Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't. on my talk page.  I'm not negotiating against myself or putting up with this abuse any longer, and I'll wait until there's a Wikipedia administator involved.  -- TedFrank 07:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't.  Your first approach to me was an attack.  I deleted your abusiveness on MY talk page.  Why don't you stop now?  I've only asked you a dozen times.  Do you enjoy fighting?  Are you trying to bait me?  Or do you just enjoy being mean?  I've asked you now a dozen times to propose something that we can discuss - not a criticism "section": that is longer than the article was to begin with.  This is not discussion.  And you know it.  SO propose something,m if you wnat to discuss it.  I welcome your good-faith effort to negotiate.Jance 07:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I have told you 4 times that I edit by Jance and have for over 8 or 9 months.  Your attempt to imply things that are not true is not unnoticed..  I also suspect admins will see what you are doing, as well.  They are not fools, you know.Jance 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss issues

message: No, Ted, you didn't try to discuss it.  You attacked me, and continued to attack, after I asked you to stop.  I left the POV tag, in case you haven't noticed.  I also asked to start with a reasonably short section, since the article is short.  Instead you wrote a long diatribe.
So let's start here on this talk page.  Why don't you propose a paragraph and we can discuss it?Jance 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you don't want to discuss it.  THere are sources other than Overlawyered which would probably be reliable, and a criticism section be written that isn't inflammatory and longer than the rest of the article.   When I first saw this article, I believe written by you,the whole point of it was as an attack.  This lawyer is not infamous.  He is not the target of an investigation that I know of - if he is, please cite where.  I have asked you repeatedly to just discuss, and you are unwilling to do so.  I do not have time for your games.Jance 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written a shorter criticism section.  I disagree with Jance's incorrect characterizations of events: the record will reflect that there was a short paragraph there and you deleted it; I added a POV tag to reflect that deletion and you deleted the POV tag twice; I asked you to come up with a compromise edit, and you refused; I added a well-documented criticism section there that excluded all of the sources you found objectionable (even though I disagreed with your objections) with references to both sides of the controversy and you deleted it without discussion; and I have now attempted a third version.  Your criticism of Overlawyered is not well-taken, because you have had no problems with using "political" sources when you agreed with them., , .  Meanwhile, you have been insulting to me regularly, and reverted edits of mine that had nothing to do with criticism of Mr. Baron.  Please WP:AGF and avoid personal attacks. -- TedFrank 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not go by a real name here.  You are violating WIkipedia rules.  Again, you have a problem here and I am going to escalate it.  Your attempt to discredit me and to dig and print personal information is going to get you in serious trouble, and I am going to make sure of it.  You can disagree all you like.  And by the way you are not in a courtroom,.  You had a very long diatribe, which I deleted.  Overlawyered is a highly political site, and I will produce, in arbitration or wherever it goes, ample proof.  Also, your logic leaves something to be desired,.  WE are talking about this article, not about me, not about another article.  This one.  Your continued harassment is noted.Jance 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about this article.  Your argument is that Overlawyered is inappropriate because it's "highly political", but you use highly political sources all of the time. In any event, Overlawyered is not cited here: Walter Olson is, and he is a reliable source, especially given that the cite is to what Walter Olson says.  Do you have a comment about my NPOV edit or did you just want to threaten me? -- TedFrank 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection.  The problem came solely from that single editor's ownership of the article. Two other RFC/P requests are related to the same editor's tactics. -- TedFrank 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss here

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating