User talk:217.138.33.132

Firstly, the Guardian Article does not state that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber", so Wikipedia is inferring that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber". Secondly, the entire topic is essentially based on a single newspaper article which did not gain any traction. That is not responsible reporting. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia but it also has to be verifiable and accurate. Why doesn't Wikipedia write about the other individuals mentioned in the article? Why doesn't Wikipedia go to the Cool Earth Website? If Wikipedia copied the Guardian article in good faith, it would mention every individual mentioned in the article. The topic has been reported in malicious faith and without foundation. It is also not a topic, it is a newspaper article.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no rant. Your author has read an article, jumped on the content of the article as fact and then misrepresented the article. Why doesn't the author of the article fact check themselves before they write the article? Isn't that what you're supposed to do as a responsible organization? Shouldn't you look into the content of the article and verify it instead of dismissing the claims because they make you uncomfortable.

September 2020
Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 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. Goose ( Talk! ) 04:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

By writing a factually inaccurate article, Wikipedia is engaging in uncivilised behaviour that is malicious and defamatory. Why don't you actually check the article in question! maybe there is something to the claims that the article is inaccurate......

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)