User talk:74.196.111.68

November 2013
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Nancy Grace, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Something of that nature will need to be cited with reliable sources. See WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE. If there is other accusations of that nature, they too should be removed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Refer me, or cite herein, the section of Wikipedia's policies that state that such must be cited. Obstruction is also serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:74.196.111.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Click on WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE. Do not replace that content without citing a source. Doing so may result in a wp:block Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you block me for stating such; you will be subpoenaed for obstruction.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

My entry was not a quotation. Challenged or likely to be challenged, by whom? There is no specificity. The material is verifiable. Public Information requests are how the information is obtained, and may not be shared.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Legal threat by User talk:74.196.111.68. Thank you.

No, there isn't. And that wasn't a threat. I personally, will subpoena you and the person responsible for approving your random edits.

Coercion, brings in racketeering, if any profit is made from your personal guarding of the page in question.

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Nancy Grace with this edit. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit is not poorly referenced. The mere fact you unaware of the process for submitting a Public Information request does not render the edit poorly referenced. Read the Law pertaining to a Public Information Requests.

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Nancy Grace with this edit. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My entry was not a quotation. Challenged or likely to be challenged, by whom? There is no specificity. The material is verifiable. Public Information requests are how the information is obtained, and may not be shared. If you block me for stating such; you will be subpoenaed for obstruction.

Do you work for or are contracted with Nancy Grace?

This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Nancy Grace with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jim1138 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Harm to wikipedia. Think you can prove that on the witness stand, versus written evidence of what I edited? "Go for it buddy!" You are harming the Public Standard.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC) You both, will be subpoenaed. And if either or just one of you work with or for Nancy, this is now Conspiracy to commit Obstruction.