User talk:75.85.221.153

August 2009
I understand. Cameron, the charity has VERY good reason for not making statements to the media yet, and the CBS article is passing false data about the charity the wrong will be cleared up in court and in the media in the coming months. In the mean time, the wiki article is damaging the charity. Isn't there any way to 'keep' the sourced information on the page prior and not make false assumptions based on the CBS report? The CBS report was added, isnt that enough?

Why take all the sourced and accurate information about the charity out and replace it with assumptions based on a false news report? That isn't necessary either.

This is damaging Mr. Jackson's work and his charity.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How wikipedia works
The Heal the World Foundation article had a reliable source that states that the new charity has no connection to the original Jackson charity. The only way that this article can be changed is by you finding a reliable source that states this is fact not the case. A reliable source would be a magazine article, a news report or another statement by the Jackson estate - you can't qyote yourself or your own website (because it's pretty clear who you are).

Now you might shout "but it's not true!" and this is the absolutely key thing about wikipedia you need to grasp, wikipedia is about verification not truth., we report what reliable sources say and that is it.

The most common response by involved parties is to think I'll just keep re-adding it and eventually it will stick - this never works. All that happens is that we lock the article so that only long-term editors like myself can edit it and we then ban your account. So if you cannot find a reliable source, don't bother - it just wastes everyone's time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this - "so and so said X" and "the lawyers say this" means nothing to wikipedia - we aren't a site for putting wrong mistakes, for fairly complex reasons, we don't get into any of that - we simply report what sources such as CBS state. The only way the article would be changed is if a) CBS published a retraction or b) the Jackson estate stated in a reliable source that they did have a connection to the new charity. Any attempts to change the article without those sorts of sources will just be reverted because of our rules on sourcing and eventually the page would be locked to new editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at  and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

For reference, this is an example where this IP makes what many would consider an unacceptable legal threat. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)