User talk:Theboxingsleuth

June 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jack90s15 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack - this is a legal situation with QLD Police Service now investigating the matter and tracking the misuse of telecommunications act. Please do not revert the content again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboxingsleuth (talk • contribs)
 * Exactly what do you mean by this statement, Theboxingsleuth? Have you filed a police report or are you taking legal action? Because that would affect your status as an editor on Wikipedia. This isn't a threat, it's Wikipedia policy (see WP:LEGAL). Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Theboxingsleuth,

Please note we have a policy against making legal threats. It obviously doesn't preclude you from taking legal action, but it does require that you not edit Wikipedia while you do. It's primarily meant to prevent people from using threats of legal action as a kind of trump card in an argument.

We take this really seriously; probably more seriously than we need to, sometimes. There is a possibility that an admin will come and block this account until the legal threat is retracted. I'm not going to do that, but any admin who does will be within policy.

However, I do see your point, a lot of the recent edits are taking somewhat dubious sources, and kind of warping and twisting them into the most unflattering light possible. I've reverted back to an older version. If you wish to address this on-wiki instead of thru the legal system, you can delete your comment above, and comment on the article talk page.

It might also ease User:Jack90s15's mind to know that I imagine your main concern are other users besides him. I think Jack was just reverting what he saw as largescale removal of info with sources from an article by a new editor. 9 times out of 10, that's vandalism. In this case, it wasn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)