User talk:Dickie Dunn

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Lovell Coleman. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Lovell Coleman. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moocha,

I am trying to assist a friend in removing potentially damaging information regarding a living person. Young relatives of this person have found this information, which was removed last spring successfully, but has now returned. It is legal information that is irrelevant some 40 years later as there were no charges and could be construed as harmful and unwarranted at this time. The re-poster of this information should be the one having their motives questioned in this situation.

Can you assist me in this area?

Thank you. DD
 * Hi! Situations like this are always tricky. The problem is that the information is sourced and references have been provided. While I understand your motivation, there is the principle of the thing to consider - would it, for example, be appropiate to remove information about a goverment official's acts of corruption in order to avoid his children seeing it? The current case is clearly not that important, but I think you can see where I'm going with this. I think the best bet would be to take this issue to the article's talk page. Add your intentions and motivations there (don't forget to sign your contribution using four tildes (~) in sequence at the end), and if in a reasonable amount of time (say, one week) nobody adds anything or provides acceptable reasons for halting the deletion, delete ahead. Then, if it gets reverted again, undo the revert and point to the talk page. Best of luck! Moocha (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Moocha. Can you explain your position in this matter as I am new to wiki? Why are you limiting my ability to edit this article at this time and suggesting that I wait for others to have to have further say? Thanks DD
 * I'm following Wikipedia's policies, in this case Wikipedia is not censored and Editing policy. Moocha (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay Moocha

You mention yesterday that the article had provided "references". Am I doing something wrong, as I cannot seem to open or hyperlink to the said "Toronto Star" article on the matter and wouldn't it be fair to make this information available to back up the editor's paragraph and verbiage on the matter. This site is related to the positive football achievements of this individual and this re-occurring negative information seems to be malicious in its intent. Wouldn't you agree?. PS. Are you the one responsible or can you indicate who keeps revising this information? As a new member of this site I am still finding my way around and am not sure who is doing this and would like to dialog with them one on one.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

DD
 * Hello. There is no hyperlink to the Toronto Star article, but the reference to the source is obviously there and can be checked. This site is not related to either positive or negative anything. This site is dedicated to provide encyclopedic, comprehensive information about the topic matter, so no, I would not agree. I did not provide the original information. To see who provided that information check the page history. Use the page history link to see who changed what (and please be aware that, even if you delete this information, anyone who checks the page history can retrieve it at any point in time, so I wouldn't entertain illusions of being able to suppress it.) Please get into the habit of signing your comments with four tilde characters: ~. Moocha (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)