User:Demiurge999

  respect for living persons

Thank you for contributions to quality articles such as Battle of Radzymin (1920), for copy-editing, and for treating not only biographies of living persons with respect, but also editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Daedalus969 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Boyd Barrett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The warning you gave me on Viticulturist99 (talk) was a frivolous warning. I haven't done a single reversion but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus finally reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to censorship if not to harrassment. Wikipedia is not not censored. Please stop. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop acting in what appears to be bad faith. Your hostile comments on my talk page and your revert of a simple, correct edit show signs of some kind of grudge. It would be more productive for you to use your energy elsewhere - Unixtastic (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dylan620&diff=438015622&oldid=438013042 Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at User talk:AutomaticStrikeout, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  00:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Most people didn't like this scary revision of Jimbo's talk page (you need to wait on the page a few moments to see it...) This comment struck me as an unusual way to write to write to someone and a very emphatic use of repetition, but was described by its author (here) as "a likely response when some people repeatedly ignore the policy about gaining prior consensus before deleting images". "Commentators often express doubt whether he is being sarcastic or just incoherent" - from our article on Muammar Gaddafi but sometimes true of me too.

Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons mentions that material about living persons in any Wikipedia page must follow all applicable laws in the United States of America. This does not mean that compliance with U.S. law is sufficient for compliance with Wikipedia policy on such material. The policy does not exist for the primary purpose of avoiding litigation. It exists for the primary purpose of avoiding the possibility of harm to living subjects -- and the avoidance of litigation is merely a fortuitous consequence of this.

In other words, confidence that publication of material would not be defamatory (for example because it is sourced to an identifiable third party publication) does not establish that the material meets the requirements of WP:BLP. It should be expected that even respectable broadsheet newspapers or news websites will routinely publish material about living persons that may not be suitable as part of an encyclopedia.