User talk:Ralimampeule

November 2023

Hello, I'm Leoneix. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rali Mampeule without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you have issues, put a message in the talk page or ask for help in Teahouse Leoneix _(talk) 13:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Rali Mampeule, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Don't remove content without consensus, come to the Teahouse, and lets have a talk. Leoneix _(talk) 13:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoneix.

Is there any way I can attach some affidavits that prove these controversies are just rumours? Ralimampeule (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralimampeule please visit WP:Teahouse and have a discussion Leoneix _(talk) 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Rali Mampeule, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Leoneix _(talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralimampeule While waiting for a resolution to your email request, you could put a statement on the Talk page of the article explaining that the controversies section is out of date for ____ reasons. Not everyone looking at the article will also look at the Talk page, but at least there will be a statement to the effect that the article needs to be corrected. David notMD (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info help (only for serious legal matter)

Send an email describing your situation to info-en-q@wikipedia.org Leoneix _(talk) 13:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This email address doesn't seem to work. Ralimampeule (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one posted here lacked the ampersand, I've added it. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have sent an email. May I edit the article again using the email as an explanation? The affidavits have been forwarded within the email. This section is really damaging my reputation and has been for a while. All based on rumours and I've been cleared of all wrongdoing. Ralimampeule (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should not edit the article directly in most cases(see the autobiography policy. As you are claiming that the sources summarized in the article about you are libelous, you have done the correct thing by sending the email. You will just need to be patient for a reply. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the only thing an affidavit proves is that you have entered your views or evidence in a legally sworn document. It doesn't mean that those views are correct. That said, again, if the sources summarized in the article about you are inaccurate, you'll need to tell how in the email you send. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The affidavit is not just my affidavit but those of many others that were involved in the purchase with me. Including high ranking officials. Ralimampeule (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that affidavits aren't necessarily proof here. If you have a legal case that was resolved with a determination by a court that you did not engage in the wrongdoing claimed by the sources or at least in the activity that the sources claim you do, that's proof here. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you might very well be correct, I have no idea. But the way to handle this is as you have done- send the email, someone will get back to you. I may misunderstand the South African legal system, my understanding of affidavits is based on the US system. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have received a response. Apparently, court documents are not considered valid sources of information on Wikipedia. The news websites that shared these stories have been summoned to appear in court, but our court date is only set for next June. What can I do here? These articles are demeaning and not based on facts. These websites are known for this in South Africa. They spread lies to get views and memberships. Ralimampeule (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]