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.
May 2012
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. Shearonink (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -- Thanks, the signature always seems to appear or I am reading it incorrectly? Archivesharer (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- You just need to always include four tildes (four of these things)--> ~ at the end of any of your posts, even on your own talk page. Shearonink (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
> **Reply -- Just did it the on Admin discussion page. Surely this issue can be resolved more easily. I wish we could find cooler heads! Archivesharer (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the word-game is played using "Legal threats" or "Legal action", Wikipedia's policy is clear: WP:NLT is a bright-line policy requiring blocking of the account while any legal (insert threat/action here) is outstanding. Your comments above make it clear that you are threatening to pursue action against Wikipedia, in a misguided attempt to expunge the name of this person from the encylopedia - which (although IANAL) I don't believe is possible, but even if it were, you might want to read Striesand effect - and you have repeatedly continued your "courtesy blanking" campaign even after being asked, then told, to stop. This is disruptive editing mixed with "I didn't hear that"; accordingly, you have been blocked, indefinitly per WP:NLT. If you are willing to retract your suggestions of legal threats/actions, along with assurances that you will not return to disruptive editing, you can be unblocked; otherwise your account must remain blocked per Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)