User talk:Danroodt

Dan Roodt
I have added a "" template to the article Dan Roodt, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hawker Typhoon 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have placed this article up for deletion at AfD. Feel free to contribute here: Articles for deletion/Dan Roodt Stonemason89. (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Transformation (South Africa)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Transformation (South Africa), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mandela
Please don't push a point of view on Wikipedia, like you did by adding that external link to Mandela's biography. The site is a polemic, unsuitable for being linked to. Fences &amp;  Windows  13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it's blatant self-promotion, as the author of that site appears to be you! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Legal threat. The thread is Legal threat in BLP by an editor claiming to be the subject.The discussion is about the topic Dan Roodt. Thank you. —Roger (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely 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 below this notice the text, but 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not "merely require him to reveal his identity so that we may resolve this dispute about the content of his article about me", you demanded the real life identities and locations of all the editors who had contributed to that article, and threatened them with legal action if they did not comply - and that is a blatant legal threat, as per WP:NLT. You are welcome to take legal action against Wikipedia or against editors, but while any legal action is in progress or the threat of such action exists, you may not edit Wikipedia. (You should also be aware that you have no rights to demand other people's identifying information - that could easily be seen as WP:HARASSMENT, and can lead to a block even in the absence of legal threats) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Now I have been blocked in order to protect the biased editor Dodger67 from publishing further slanderous statements about me" is another way of saying "You must not stop me from removing falsehoods from Wikipedia and from inserting accurate information!" which is a stereotypical example of an bad unblock request. You will not be unblocked from Wikipedia unless we can assert there will be no legal action taken. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the entire history of the article you would notice that I am in fact only a minor contributor to the article - having added very little content to the article but I have removed significant quantities of unsourced material from he article on a number of occasions. I'm being picked on only because I reverted and reported the legal threats. Roger (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you identify the problematic statements, we can try to address them. But as long as you're pursuing (or considering) legal action, it's necessary that you not do any editing, in order to allow whatever court case(s) occur to be clean, essentially. You can also employ the remedies listed at Contact us/Article problem. Please ask for any help you need. Wily D 09:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you just delete this article, please, as I do not see any sense in having material about me carried on Wikipedia as I have suffered an enormous amount of damage already from journalists, diplomats and prospective book buyers reading this. - Dan Roodt


 * I can't; at most I could initiate a deletion discussion, but given your relative amount of fame, I'm skeptical that it wouldn't come to a consensus to keep the article. Looking over the sourcing of the article (and being otherwise totally ignorant of who you are - no offence), it looks like the article reflects what's in the sources, and that they establish you're a reasonably famous person.  More specific complaints are generally more actionable (or at least, might provide the basis for action).   But decisions on Wikipedia are made by community consensus; there isn't one person who decides what to do.  Wily D  10:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, or how to deal with articles about yourself. We generally err on the side of caution when adding any negative or questionable content about a living person, and it's possible that the sources are questionable (tabloid journalism is a particular culprit of this) or insufficient (I generally like to see two or three independent sources say the same thing about someone if it's negative - one is not enough), in which case the information could get deleted. However, you need to understand why you are blocked and assure the administrators you'll try and work with us and not issue legal threats before you can do any of this. With all that in mind, you might want to reword your unblock request to cover this, as I'm almost certain in its current state it will get declined. Hope that's of some help. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised this at WP:BLPN -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)