User talk:Ralimampeule

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]

One source that cites the passage at issue says at the bottom that "the claim is open to some doubt", which is certainly true. It also says that they asked you for comment and to provide your evidence to them, and that you declined citing the ongoing investigation. That's probably the right thing to do from a legal standpoint, but it does keep independent sources from reporting your side. I can't tell you that you should tell them your side; that would certainly be unwise legally(in my lay person opinion, I am not a lawyer) and I don't want you to do that- but that's why it's not in the article about you, because it's not in independent sources. There's probably not much to be done here until your case is heard.

If you want to argue that the sources that published these claims have poor journalistic practices and should not be considered reliable sources, that's a case to make on the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]