Archive

You must stop vandalizing Nathaniel Branden. No matter how many times you say so, it cannot be libel to say the truth. His PhD did not come from an accredited institution, and saying otherwise is simply dishonest. Perhaps you first reverted out of ignorance or overreaction, but I cannot assume good faith any longer, becuase your error has been corrected many times now, including in the comment by Pia on this very page that you deleted without ever addressing. I also see that you deleted other complaints about your bad behavior, so this seems to be a pattern of yours. Regardless, you must stop immediately. You have the moral low ground and are outnumbered. Please do the reasonable thing and step down. FraisierB 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is the vandal and, yes, what you are doing is libel (no matter how many times you say otherwise). His PhD is valid and approved and accepted, implying otherwise is libel - and that is what you do when you elevate the word "unaccredited" to prominence. I would agree with you if this were a diploma mill, but it is not. I would agree with you if the degree were a sham, but it is not. The state is happy with it. His credentials aren't in question except by those bring up this non-point for POV reasons. Any information about the school belongs on the school page and not on Branden's. And by the way, I didn't delete the comment from Pia, or anything else, I archived the entire page which had become to long, and put a link to the archive at the top of this page. As usual, you jump to a bad conclusion and then turn it into a personal attack. You have the moral low-ground because we both know who is trying to make Branden look bad while pretending to engage in NPOV editing. I assure you, I will never step down in the face of people committing libel against a living person and thinking they can get away with it because of technicalities. Read the quote from Jimmy Wales I put under Pia's last comment on Branden's talk page. Steve 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school is unaccredited. The statement is not libel. And this discussion is over. FraisierB 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind you that, if you revert now, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. I looked it up and I even know where to report you. Do not force me to do this. FraisierB 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rr rule does not apply when you are libeling a living person. Steve 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

. stating that a school is unaccredited is not lible. You are also edit warring with 3 other users.Rlevse 03:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I came to give you a friendly warning about 3RR and personal attacks on Buridan. (That he has an axe to grind.) I see that I'm too late about the former. Concerning Buridan, yes, I see that he has an axe to grind against Rand, but he does apparently stick to the "letter of the law" here. Just before I came here to your talk page, I posed a question to you on the Branden talk page. Originally, you had a point, but what is defamatory about saying the school is "unaccredited, but state-approved for graduates to take the licensure exam"? If you can convince me, you have an ally, especially since I'm more a fan of Branden than of Rand. So I shouldn't be hard to convince. PS: You block doesn't prevent you from commenting here. Otheus 13:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve I have been watching this one and the 3RR's and reading about Branden and Rand, trying to catch up both on the subject and on edit wars. Mine is an offer of support. If I can be so presumptuous, how can I help? The List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and related pages is my next step, where the California Graduate Institute is not listed. One of my confusions in this matter is that the person who is defamed is the one who can begin an action for damages in a US court. If someone is slandered in a wiki article, do they need to be involved in defending themselves or can an editor do so by proxy?--Ziji 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

In case you hadn't heard, you helped sucesfully expose this person as a sock-puppeteer by starting the RFCU. Thanks!Ethan a dawe 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure.  :-)

I was looking at the comments on the FreddyTris talk page - and in my mind I was seeing this sock with a little face drawn on it and it is on a person's hand and they are making it talk, using a high squeaky voice, saying, "You're a second- hander" - too ironic for words. What a loser.

Steve 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, that's a good outcome and well done you. I'm guessing they will be back. Just ask if I can assist - much for me to learn--Ziji 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words of wisdom re Branden. My affection for his work is enlarged. I began with 'If you could hear what I cannot say' in 1983/4 and am still using some of his stems with couples. I will miss you on the clinpsychg page. What's your book about?--Ziji 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]