User talk:Thetrueword88

Welcome!

Hello, Thetrueword88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Lightstone edits
Can you please explain your removal of the items related to David Lichtenstein and The Lightstone Group. These are referenced items of some note and similar edits have been undone by several editors. There is an attempt to maintain a neutral point of view which includes information that may not always be promotional. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The court documents indicate that this is a damages only guarantee and since the bankruptcy was initiated for the benefit of the estate, there are no damages, which is why secured mortgage agreed to give indemnity. see article which talks about the indemnity. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124507864459215309.html Thetrueword88 (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does that justify repeatedly removing all reference to the bankruptcy protection filing and all related matters? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Bihco (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deleting a Page
You should start by bringing that issue up on Talk:David Lichtenstein. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing articles about oneself
Hello, Thetrueword88. I saw your message on another editor's user talk page; I hope you don't mind me offering my unsolicited advice. You are free to ignore it as you see fit.

Generally Wikipedia is sympathetic and responsive to any violations of our biographies of living persons policy, and many of us will be willing to help you ensure David Lichtenstein is devoid of any false claims. If you are or are related to the subject of the article, you may find useful this section of advice and its associated page, Biographies of living persons/Help. These can assist you in your efforts.

Unfortunately, deleting the page entirely may not be an option, as the subject appears to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. If there are specific concerns with how the article is currently written, however, politely and openly raising your concerns on the article's talk page would be the most effective way to achieve change. Our first priority is in building a reliable and fairly comprehensive encyclopedia, but we also wish to be sensitive to the privacy and reputations of the individuals we describe.

If you would like further assistance, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or use the following link to privately email me: Special:EmailUser/Kotra. -kotra (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lichtenstein
I have no valid grounds to delete the article (we do have a "speedy delete" process but this article does not meet the criteria). To delete the page you would have to go through our process in which you formally nominate the article for deletion, and there is discussion and a poll, before any decision is made. Complete information for how to do this is at WP:Afd.

But frankly, I am not sure that a motion to delete the article will pass. Wikipedians are strongly anti-censorship. I am not trying to tell you what to do about deletion - read over the page and if you want to nominate it for deletion go ahead.

But I do have practical advice. If there are any privacy concerns, which is really a personal matter, we have a policy that comes into play: WP:BLP. This policy explains the limits of what can legitimately go into an article about a living person. My advice is to read this policy carefully and see if there is any sentence in the article tht violates the policy. If so, you have grounds to delete it. In other words, my initial advice is to ensure that the article complies with our BLP policy. Mr. Lichtenstein may still be unhappy about there being an article about him, but at least the article will be attentive to privacy issues, will not be libelous, etc.

Please read these two policies and then let me know if you want more advice or still want me to do something. Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for deletion of David Lichtenstein
I notice that you have been asking various editors to help to have the article David Lichtenstein deleted. You have also blanked the article in an attempt to remove its content from Wikipedia. You have said "he is a private person and doesn't really want so much fanfare about himself". I find this surprising. I have done a significant amount of searching, and have found no evidence anywhere else that Lichtenstein does not wish to be publicly known. Indeed on the contrary, he appears to have spent some significant effort in publicising himself. For example, the Lightstone Group devotes significant coverage to him on its web site, as in this page, this page, etc. I also notice that your claims that Lichtenstein does not like publicity started only after you had repeatedly failed to have adverse publicity about him removed from the Wikipedia article. All this encourages me to wonder whether, in fact, the issue is not that Lichtenstein does not wish to have publicity, but that he wishes to suppress any adverse publicity, and realises that it is not possible to prevent a Wikipedia article from telling both sides of the story. If this is not the case, and Lichtenstein really does dislike any publicity at all, perhaps you can give reliable sources indicating this fact, and also explain the odd fact that his own company gives him so much publicity. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)