→May 2012: + |
Archivesharer (talk | contribs) Reply |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] [[Special:Contributions/Archivesharer|Your recent edits]] to [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force]] could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is '''''strictly prohibited''''' under Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|legal threats]] and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]]. '''Users who make such threats may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]'''. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by [[WP:RS|reliable independent sources]] and focusing especially on [[WP:V|verifiable]] errors of fact. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-legal --> [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 06:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] [[Special:Contributions/Archivesharer|Your recent edits]] to [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force]] could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is '''''strictly prohibited''''' under Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|legal threats]] and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]]. '''Users who make such threats may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]'''. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by [[WP:RS|reliable independent sources]] and focusing especially on [[WP:V|verifiable]] errors of fact. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-legal --> [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 06:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Under the [[WP:NLT]] policy, legal threats should not be used; please reconsider your comments at [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force]], because making comments such as this aren't the way to resolve any issues. You commented in favor of the article being deleted, and the way the discussion is going, that's what will happen with the article, so comments like that don't really help anything. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
:Under the [[WP:NLT]] policy, legal threats should not be used; please reconsider your comments at [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force]], because making comments such as this aren't the way to resolve any issues. You commented in favor of the article being deleted, and the way the discussion is going, that's what will happen with the article, so comments like that don't really help anything. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
** Reply There is a team now looking at all of the remarks by editors and how things have been handled which are untrue that has been coming from the Wikipedia editors. |
|||
The subject has not yet been apprised. But, in the search engines, these untrue comments are at the top of the subject's search results. That is unacceptable. There have been no threats, just research, like that included in this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation. Because Wikipedia editors are unfamiliar with a subject does not give them the right to debase the person's name. There are now over twenty links to review with the subject's name which is quite unfair considering the subject has not asked to be part of the Wikipedia Project of Foundation. Who has the responsibility to remove all the derogatory links and editorial opinions of the people who are obviously not familiar with the subject? The terms these editors use are in terrible taste. They are worse than yellow journalists. |
Revision as of 07:05, 29 May 2012
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Яehevkor ✉ 20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. SudoGhost 06:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Under the WP:NLT policy, legal threats should not be used; please reconsider your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force, because making comments such as this aren't the way to resolve any issues. You commented in favor of the article being deleted, and the way the discussion is going, that's what will happen with the article, so comments like that don't really help anything. - SudoGhost 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reply There is a team now looking at all of the remarks by editors and how things have been handled which are untrue that has been coming from the Wikipedia editors.
The subject has not yet been apprised. But, in the search engines, these untrue comments are at the top of the subject's search results. That is unacceptable. There have been no threats, just research, like that included in this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation. Because Wikipedia editors are unfamiliar with a subject does not give them the right to debase the person's name. There are now over twenty links to review with the subject's name which is quite unfair considering the subject has not asked to be part of the Wikipedia Project of Foundation. Who has the responsibility to remove all the derogatory links and editorial opinions of the people who are obviously not familiar with the subject? The terms these editors use are in terrible taste. They are worse than yellow journalists.