User talk:Lex2006

Hello, I did some edits on your copy for marcus evans which was interesting. Can you provide some concrete references ref. what you say regarding the Polish and other offices you mention? You mention there were some newspaper reports about the incidents you refer to... Ivankinsman (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. CIreland (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Also the claim is untrue, for what it's worth. The first time I saw this page was when I saw the reverts. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring is a two way street. I am personally owed 30,000 british pounds by this man and this company. I know countless others owed as well. I worked there as a manager, I have the names of all persons who were party to the referenced closings and can even state that the man blocking me was responsible, personally, for coming to Copenhagen and with Charlotte Borg, the then GM of Copenhagen, liquidated the office of all valuable and confidential material, spent money on dining and drinks with her and then after the weekend he liquidated the office for Marcus and at Marcus' direct order, left Charlotte to give bogus offers he knew most people would turn down. I can cite all registration records as to how he unregistered the European offices and can also site pending cases against him that were subsequently unenforceable. Polish Newspapers can be referenced, with date and article if needed, and a Dutch police report can be obtained with a case number as to reference the raiding of the Amsterdam office. Despite my personal issues with this company, the text I added was relatively broad, neutral and easily cited if that is all that is required. I can give a list of companies that have at one time or another put Marcus Evans on "no calls lists" cite conferences and summits which were disasters due to lies told by sales people, I still have a copy of the sales training manual and can quote directly out of that. If this is sufficient I would edit this all and cite it! The page in question is NOT neutral at present. It is a favourable review of Marcus Evans the person with vague and broad references to his company and only one citation of a controversy in which he prevailed, no surprise since the creators and editors are his right and left hand people. They not only block any honest content from this page, but also have created a barrage of mirror sites of their own website or events to ensure Rip Off Report stays as far from the front page as possible. I simply want a fair and balanced report of this company and its history which is not even accurately described here. The company has changed names about 4 times when I began with them they were IFMR, they have also gone under 3 other names prior to that. This was always in effort to conceal who they were to disgruntled companies. Further, if I were to write honestly and biased, I would cite how many people Marcus had arrangements with to illegally pay to offshore accounts, myself included, to evade high European taxes. I would also mention how Marcus claims to be a tax exile but how his children in fact go to school in UK and he spends most of his time in UK NOT OUTSIDE. So in light of all this and my offer to site all my edits I believe there should be no further issues or breaches with your policies.


 * How about you first post your sources here so we can decide if they're reliable? And how about you also read this, as well? Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to express your personal injuries and quarrels with the subjects of its articles. It is a neutral encyclopedia, dealing with verifiable facts attested in reliable third party sources, not the personal experiences of our editors, and not original research from selections of Polish newspapers and police reports. Even if you were to be unblocked at this time, we would require you to desist from editing the article in question, as it is quite evident you could not do so in dispassionate way. I suggest you make your commentary at some message board dealing with consumer and employee complaints, not here. If you've been maltreated by this company, you have my sympathy personally, but wikipedia is not your avenue for seeking justice.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That said, this is not a personal revenge issue. I think you have missed my point. Just as this company has evaded the law, broke the laws, and manipulated the legal system due to its sheer size and fortune, they too control this page. The person who had me blocked is an agent of the company. NOTHING negative, from me or anyone, cited or not, no matter how factual and neutral it is, will remain more than 5 minutes on here. To me this fails Wikipedia which is why I wrote what I wrote. NOTHING referred to my personal issue with the company. I spoke of controversies regarding the company. There are companies I find great that I may well add articles to Wikipedia on, if other people have critical factual information I would not continuously disrupt their posts though I may simply ask them to cite the facts. I have offered to cite facts but this seems to not suffice. In as much as complaint boards, many have much to say about this company and unlike Wikipedia they do not censur truthful statements. To me the bias here is not allowing any negative information to be posted even if there are citations which are factual. It is allowing the article creator broad censorship of their article. That all said, I am done with this article and wish for my block to be lifted and will cease and desist from any further edits to this article but cannot guarantee others will do the same.

Editing of this page has been disabled for the duration of the block due to repeated removal of the unblock templates. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

October 2010
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

If you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Carisoprodol, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
I have raised problems with your editing on this link.Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)