User talk:Archivesharer

Please do not refactor other's talk page comments, as you did at WP:ANI. N419BH 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding to that, there was no need to add the ANI markup into the thread. A simple quote would suffice if you were doing what I think you were trying to do. And I've seen you refactor other's comments at least twice, please stop. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your edit quite clearly included an edit to a message already posted by user:Drmies. You can edit your own comments - but ONLY them. If you don't edit other's posts, you won't be reverted, simple. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning

You have been informed of WP:RTV and stated your intention to utilise it [1]. You are not allowed to blank your comments from pages that are not your user talk page. The way to remove your comments is by striking through them, like this. Removal of your account name is done through WP:RTV; your repeated "courtesy blankings" are disruptive editing and, if done again, will result in your account being blocked from editing (which would also suspend the right to vanish as your account would no longer be in good standing). In addition, please note that this contains language that could be construed as a legal threat; Wikipedia's legal threat policy is a bright-line rule that will result in blocking if it is not made clear that there is no legal threat involved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Reply:

I have not noticed a legal threat, nor was one intended from me. I do not threaten! Threats are empty; Action is laudable. There are already many legal cases moving through the courts. I do understand why.

Anyhow, the community apparently purports to be decent. It is indecent to use a subject's name that has not given permission in an editorial context which the community clearly does not understand. Their own feedback was more varied than the subject's matter of fact career, which the community is clearly unfamiliar with. This issue will go on for years, or until resolved. We have people at Columbia University, who know the subject well, now looking at it also. There are various people interested. How can subject's name be removed for privacy, not stricken? Stricken in this case is not a viable option. Please do not take offense. The goal is clear and known. Our community will have no relationship with your community once the matter is resolved. Until then, even if it takes twenty years or more, there will always be an ongoing issue. That is not a threat, I know the players involved -- it is a reality. Some of them are old Enquirer hands, and they know the business well. The National Enquirer was involved in the original defamation and libel lawsuits of our time. With all due respect, please advise so that we may put this to rest permanently. With appreciation, I await your kind thoughts.