RafterJ

I took it upon myself to research and rewrite the entire bio because of the contention surrounding it. I am a law student on semester break and working on my research and writing skills, that is why the page is footnoted like an academic paper. I am not affiliated with any of the parties to the dispute and did this as semester break work project to keep my academic mindset going (I am also reading "the Nine" by Jeffery Toobin).

Further, my professors have said I need to work on my research and writing skills. I am from the area and recall a lot of the news surrounding the topic. I have also edited on Wiki in the past on topics like "Brown v. Board of Education" and other constitutional law issues, as these are areas of interest and limited expertise for me. Those edits though were done anonymously. I didn't think something like a minor edit (the number and names of the other cases bundled with Brown when it went up for review by the Supreme Court in 1952-1955 needed I identify myself or "blow my own horn," but rewriting an entire topic I felt would need my establishing an account. I would be willing to research and rewrite other topics if they are in areas of interest or expertise. I stumbled across this and read the discussion page a few weeks back and thought I might could help out. If my edits are not acceptable, I won't disrupt the forum further.

As it is professors are already starting to list in their syllabi that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for academic papers and I am just trying to increase its reliability because as an older college student, I enjoy being able to do Internet research and not having to go to the library and etc. Wikipedia is a good idea in my mind. I encourage others to use it, but to look at the credibility of a piece based on its sources and its proper use of references.

Please advise, if my efforts aren't needed or aren't appreciated.

RafterJ (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

W.V. Grant article

Again, I've reverted your unexplained massive changes in information and tone on the W.V. Grant article. While your efforts to improve Wikipedia are appreciated, you're removing references and negative information on the subject without explanation. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Your comments in the section on James Randi and your speculation about Grant's tax evasion charges is also original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on accounts from reliable secondary sources, not original research or rebuttals of the facts. I again encourage you to bring up your changes on the talk page of the article, and try and show other editors what you're trying to do. Wikipedia runs on gaining consensus, so please try and discuss your proposed additions before making huge changes in the facts and tone of an article. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning

Please stop removing negative information from the W.V. Grant page, and continue the discussion we've begun on the talk page. If you have complaints about the article, please bring them up there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Filing ANI Reports

The instructions for filing a report at the administrators noticeboard are at the top of the page. Basically, you just post the case for comment. If you have complaints about my behavior, you can also bring that up. If you need any help formatting it, I'll take a look once it's up. What I said earlier about not making the post too long certainly applies, you can look at the other posts to get an example of how long statements usually are on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)