User talk:88.87.6.216

Reverted Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing
It appears you are engaging in Original Research. While Primary documents can sometimes be acceptable, secondary sources that analyze Primary sources are preferred. In addition, you can not state anything further than what the source provides and language should be neutral. Please see WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:Primary for more information. Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it was me who did the original research based on the primary documents. Before I made this public everyone believed Google was convicted for hyperlinking. But please, feel free to publish wrong information. I have not the slightest in interest in trying to convince wikipedia editors in a battle to publish it on wikipedia.

WP:OR is quite clear. You can NOT do original research, you can NOT provide analysis of a Primary Document. If you believe the article is wrong find WP:RS that support the facts you believe to be true. Slywriter (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dude, the link to the original verdict of the court is included. I can give a link to articles by doing a simple google search but what is more reliable, an article or the original document? For 10 years almost wikipedia had it right. Then someone came (probably also you?) and messed it up. I again correct and make sure Wikipedia has it right and then you come and reverse it and now wikipedia is showing complete untrue facts. Clean up the mess you made! I am not going to do it for you.


 * WP:Sofixit but do so without additional commentary and opinions and using Reliable Sources. The Court documents can only be used to quote directly from, they can not be expanded upon by you to tell the reader what you think they say or prove.
 * I reversed because Original Research is 100% not allowed. Nothing more, nothing less. Never seen the article before then. Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)