User talk:Pup68

October 2019
Your recent edits to Dan Welcher could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. ''It's not clear what your intent was in this edit summary, but it could be construed as a threat to take legal action. Was that your intent?'' Toddst1 (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Content issues / Lawyers
We have a policy, WP:BLP, which covers living individuals, and a policy on the neutrality of content, WP:NPOV. You appear to be, or be associated with, the subject of Dan Welcher. Wikipedia aspires to be fair in what it says, even if you don't like it we hope you will acknowledge that we are fair, so if you have issues with specifics of the content, and bearing mind your apparent conflict of interest, I recommend you to discuss matters calmly on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Do avoid any appearance of legal threats, or any uncivil discourse and if you need guidance there are people who can perhaps offer advice at info-en-q@wikimedia.org - although the people who have come to the article's talk page may also be able to advise.

Just to be clear, you have not been blocked from editing. The article about Dan Welcher has had some negative information added that was not supported by any reliable source and there appears to be some folks (including yourself) who have connections to the subject to the article that might not have the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and a neutral point of view. We can't rely on me or anyone else calling the the University to verify what you or anyone else says; we rely on supposedly reliable sources.

I'm not making this up - this is Policy. Toddst1 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To add to the above, as the administrator who protected the article, if the media stories actually are incorrect, there are public relations strategies Welcher or his agent/representative/lawyer could use to deal with that. This might include asking the newspaper to print a retraction, or releasing a statement. If that were to happen, and a reliable source were to run a story about it, the opposing point of view could then be added to the article.  Coming directly to Wikipedia and saying "fake news" or "libel" isn't going to get anything accomplished. We, meaning the community of Wikipedia editors, cannot just take your word for something like that, because it can easily be interpreted as you or Welcher trying to whitewash the article. –Darkwind (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)