User talk:LPhnx

Legal threat
I have advised Wikipedia administrators of your comments. Denisarona (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Chillum 14:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To be unblocked you need to retract your legal threat and make it clear that you understand the intimidation and threats are not allowed here. We aim for a neutral point of view and comments meant to have a chilling effect are not tolerated. Chillum 14:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read No legal threats to understand our position on such matters. Chillum 14:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To go into a little more detail (this info is also in the links Chillum has provided): if you wish to pursue legal action against Wikipedia, we can't (and wouldn't) stop you; however, while legal action is threatened or is occurring, we cannot allow you to simultaneously edit the site, for your legal protection and ours. Once your legal action is concluded, either because you have decided not to pursue it or because the legal case was closed, you should let us know so you can return to editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

. It is curious that Wikipedia is so prompt at triggering repressive mechanisms prior to reviewing the object of eventual contention.

Firstly, I have addressed a contemplation of a legal challenge towards, not wikipedia, but one of its contributor. It does not constitute a formal legal threat neither to Wikipedia nor the contributor. In that respect, I do not find myself having to justify a levy of unesserary sanctions that Wikipedia has imposed upon my action which in part reflects my enjoyment of freedom of speech in full observance with international law and Wikipedia terms and conditions.

Secondly, in lieu of sanctions, I would have assumed that Wikipedia would have carefully reviewed the content and the editing of its contributor. In light of my appreciation, I sincerely believe that the content in question is inappropriate, historically flawed, discriminatory and contrary to the expertise and views expressed by the highest French authorities.

Thirdly, I must stressed that effectively, Wikipedia may be subjecting itself to be challenged should it permits such content to be provided to the public.
 * First of all, extending your threat to Wikipedia entirely is not going to help you get unblocked.
 * Second of all, it doesn't matter from our perspective whom your threat of legal action is against: even if--or indeed, especially if--your threat is directed against a signle editor, the chilling effect it creates against that and other editors is very real. We're not lawyers here, so we don't wait for a "formal" legal threat; if you threaten to pursue legal action, you will be blocked, simple as that. After all, our editors can't be expected to distinguish between formal and informal threats; they are going to be discouraged from editing regardless. It doesn't matter how formal or informal the threat, or how couched in language it is.
 * Third and finally, your right to freedom of speech is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Freedom of speech protects you from government repression, but Wikipedia is not a government; it is a private website that is not obligated to provide space for anyone to speak if it so chooses.
 * If you continue to reiterate your threats, we will have to remove your ability to edit this page as well: please don't make it come to that. Your only path to being able to edit Wikipedia again is retracting the threat of legal action. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

.

I appreciate both your legal commentary and interpretation, your concerns and the lecturing. I advise Wikipedia - an entity self-purposively of public interest- to revise the related section "Muslim Tensions" that is to be found under "History of France", which may arguably incitate racial hatred, be harmful, subjective, historically inaccurate and discriminatory. Regards.


 * You'll want to address the reason for your block if you want to be unblocked. Huon (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)