User talk:Archivesharer

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 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, 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.

Please note that I have removed the text, as it appeared to be a copyright violation of wikipedia-watch.org/wikitort.html. You're welcome to link to external links, but actual copying of content in the link is a copyright violation. - SudoGhost 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Reply: Thank you, will follow your advice.

Please also see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) if there are concerns about the content of the article. - SudoGhost 07:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Reply -- To be clear; there are no personal attacks being made, except those being made on the subject of the encyclopedic entry.

If editors’ would like to reveal their true selves, as the subject is revealed in this situation, then that discussion could begin. That would actually be the fair and equitable route.

That's unnecessary, and suggests the desire to violate WP:OUTING. Also, it makes the erroneous assumption that editors with whom you disagree are acting in bad faith. What's clear is that your account is the one with an agenda. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Reply -- There is no desire to out the editors, but I have heard of others doing that.

My accounts agenda is to contribute to a better encyclopedia. What is currently being seen is not in keeping with international norms or standards. It just so happens I know some of the history of the subject of the article who was being debased. Started looking around and I know some of the other subjects too. I am quite familiar with one Mr. Baron of East Hampton; it seems he went through a difficult situation with the content creators of Wikipedia as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/louis-bacon-wikipedia-defamation-lawsuit_n_859499.html

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see my note at. You are very close to making personal attacks, if you haven't crossed that line already, and your badgering is becoming disruptive. Please stop: you are not helping your cause. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The other editor's comment was altered with this edit. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Vanishing

The procedures are at WP:RTV. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you, I will follow those procedures...

Request for the right to remove as per blanking anr criteria set forth by Wikipedia

Please accept this request for blanking as set forth by Wikipedia blanking policy. The details are as follows: Courtesy blanking is undertaken on pages where content there is, for one reason or another, not appropriate to be displayed as the current page revision. In such cases, the page is replaced with this template, a process known as courtesy blanking.

Courtesy blanking does not entail any revision deletion (see, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Hiding revisions). The content previously on the page will be visible through the page history; to view it, simply click the "history" tab at the page top, and view an older revision.

== Comment == If for any reason this option can not be extended please let it be known here. Thank you.