User talk:Angels hope

May 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- 06:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will recieve. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Kevin Annett. Mdebets (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Daniel, this is Kevin Annett writing to you. The changes I attempted to make tonight on the page about me were all in line with the facts of my story; for example, I was removed from my church position prematurely on January 23, 1995; I didn't simply "resign".

Also, there was an error when I tried to remove one of the references, from the Tyee article; an article which should not be posted because it is filled with false, libelosu and unsubstantiated allegations about me. My lawyer is proceeding with a defamation suit against the Tyee and the writer, and he and I would prefer if the reference to the Tyee article was removed. Thank you.

Kevin Annett
 * Once your block expires please discuss changes you would like to make on the talk page or contact [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org]. Large unexplained deletions and not responding to others warnings and attempts at dialog are not going to work.  You may want to look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Conflict_of_interest will be the starting point. If you are in the process of a legal suit, you should refrain from editing. However, there are other issues:


 * A) How should we know if you are truly Mr. Annett?
 * B) If you felt a source was incorrect, why did you remove the ENTIRE section of references?
 * C) Wikipedia is about Neutral Point of View - you are free to find sources to back up your side of the claim, BUT not to remove anything you feel to be 'incorrect' simply because you say who you are.
 * D) You did not use the talk page during all the warnings were placed in your talk page constitute as disruptive editing.--Cahk (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Good point, there's no way you can know if I'm Kevin Annett except by what I tell you and perhaps a phone conversation. I'm at 250-753-3345, in Nanaimo, BC.

My mass removal of the references was a mistake. I'm new to this system. I'm concerned that what you posted recently, such as the protests outside the church, did not reflect what is really going on in this work. For example, on April 10, I released a list of mass graves at 28 former Indian residential schools that substantiates, with eyewitness testimonies, the claims I've been making about murders in residential schools. This evidence is surely as or more important than posting the issue of whether Chief Kiapilano is who he says he is. I'd appreciate the chance to post (appropriately, with your guidance) this kind of updated information that's verifiable in the mass media. All that can be sent to you. thanks, Kevin


 * Thanks for using talk page as an avenue for editing Wikipedia. I would suggest that you remove your phone number from this talk page as people might harass you by this number. As I said, if you feel the citation was not accurate enough, then please find a source to back it up (books, magazine, website). Wikipedia can not use eyewitness as source as that is original research unless it is published (this includes your website as it is non-neutral point of view).--Cahk (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't doubt that you are who you say you are and I am also glad you are now discussing rather than just reverting others edits. If you can assure me that you will not make changes without first seeking consensus at Talk: Kevin Annett I will be happy to unblock you immediately.  If there are serious legal issue regarding your bio please use the email contact I gave you in my previous post.  In general I would discourage you from making large changes to your own bio per WP:AUTO.  I can also second Cahk's suggestion that you remove your phone number the potential for misuse is just too high. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and as I said, I will provide you with corroboration to support my inserts. The version about me that is presently displayed on your Wikipedia site is entirely weighted towards the United Church's interpretation of events; the assumption seems to be that my website is "biased", but the church's isn't. On the contrary, as an organization under serious scrutiny for crimes committed by their employees - crimes the courts have already acknowledged and which have been proven in the courts - the statements coming from the United Church must obviously be taken with a grain of salt and criticism, which is not happening in the version now up.
 * Since this matter is not simply about my reputation and the truth, but effects the lives of many aboriginal people who survived these crimes, it's both a moral and a legal issue how accurate the Wikipedia descriptions are.
 * If we can't come up with a more balanced and fair depiction of me on your site, I will have to ask that the entire entry concerning me be removed.
 * Before such an action, and before I send this correspondence to my lawyer for his advice, I will try to work this out with you first to ensure that a more balanced depiction of me is on your site. I will forward you media coverage, reference to legal cases and other supporting evidence to back my inserts, if that's acceptable to you. thanks, Kevin Annett


 * While I am glad you are now on board to edit Wiki the right way, I must warn you there's No legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. If you wish to have this article removed, there are ways to do it including Criteria for speedy deletion and Articles for deletion --Cahk (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and just to be clear, I never threatened a lawsuit; like anyone, I am needing to protect my reputation and good name in the face of potentially libelous material about me that you are reproducing uncritically on your site. I will submit the material to present a more balanced depiction of me and this issue. If it doesn't work out, I'll be forced to ask you to withdraw the entire entry. thanks, Kevin.
 * First of all, it is not my site ; this site belongs to everyone. Two, if you wish to have the article removed, I've outlined the two ways you can do it above and three, please don't accuse me of putting 'libelous' info on your biography unless you got proof. My role in this article is relatively minor and I tried to strive for NPOV using the talk page which you failed to do. --Cahk (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett
I failed to understand your rationale for removal of reference section. They are perfectly fine as a source and I will ask you to stop removing them or you will be blocked.--Cahk (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on the above, if you make any more edits to the article without discussing them first, you will be blocked from editing for a period of time. Please discuss your edits on the talk page of the article, which you can find at Talk:Kevin Annett. GBT/C 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. After the block expires please bring your concerns to the talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)