Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/Archive 1

message: Just for the record:
(Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilena's IDs here at Wikipedia 

message: * This is a sample of how we can format an error or omission from this article. Please use this format and try to keep all of your points organized. After each point, please cite a reliable source which backs up the statement and then sign your post with the usual ~~~~.  Levine2112 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still no cite about the details of settlement offer than your word, Ilena.  Even if we were to accept Polevoy as a [[WP:RS],  the details of your offer are only in your E-mails and Usenet posts.  Both easy enough to forge.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Private correspondance is not considered a reliable source, except in an article about the person sending the correspondance posted by the same person.  If it's described in a court document (and the subject is relevant, which this one would be), or in published works in the context of news, that would be different.  I admit to bias against you, to some extent, as we've [censored] disagreed in misc.legal for quite a while, and I believe your positions there are in violation of common sense, but I don't think that's swayed my judgement in this dispute.  See WP:LIVING and WP:RS for more information on the Wikipedia guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If your offer and Polevoy's counter-offer are in the court record, or are published in a reputable newspaper, they may appear in the article.  Otherwise, not.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As Arthur Rubin calls himself a "Wikipedian against quackery" ... his bias is apparent and his attempts to change the facts of this case to make the losing plaintiffs look better is glaring."  Gee Ilena, are you equating yourself with quackery????  Shot info 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop with the personal attacks per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF --Ronz 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stay on topic.  Please refrain from personal attacks. --Ronz 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What personal attack? She is wondering who you are and questioning if you are indeed Stephen Barrett. You are not obligated to answer her. She is not attacking you here, just griping about how you are censoring her. Calling you "pro-Barrett" or "biased" is not a personal attack, but a description made clear by your edits. You could just the same describe Ilena as "anti-Barrett" or as "biased" just the same. I think an external link to Ilena's website is completely warranted here, especially to a page dedicated to discussing the issue at hand. If such a page exists on her site, then she should provide us with it here. Levine2112 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors and Omissions

message: Removed blatant personal attack.  David, please refrain from posting personal attacks.  If you do not, you will be blocked.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Ilena objectivity