User talk:Vermicious Knids?

April 2016
Please do not remove information from articles without good reason, as you did to Ann Louise Gittleman. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. The article quotes several reliable sources, it seems sufficiently "factual". McGeddon (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument but the material removed will never qualify as "Factual", because it is opinion. It does not matter if an article is reliable or from a reliable source so long as the information is editorial or opinion. Reviews or opinions are editorial in nature, and are not relevant to a Wikipedia article, regardless of how many times you reference them or where they are published. The simple fact is that these are opinions, and will never rise to the level of "fact" and must be removed to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Vermicious Knids? (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Vermicious Knids?

Placing Opinion and Editorial comments whether sourced or not are irrelevant. This is not a forum for Op-ed pieces. You expose Wikipedia and yourselves to potential legal action by continuing to post editorial material, with flagrant disregard for the purpose and mission of Wikipedia. The Material Removed was subjective and is not factual. 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Vermicious Knids?

Your recent editing history at Ann Louise Gittleman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Delta13C (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not removing material I do not like, I am removing irrelevant subjective editorial comments opinions and conjecture. Also do not undo my deletes because those deleted items support your personal bias against the person or topic. Vermicious Knids? (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Vermicious Knids?

Your recent edits 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. ''Following proper channels is appreciated, publicly threatening individual editors that they may suffer "real and punitive" damages as a result of it is not. This behaviour has been raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.'' McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not making legal threats merely notifying you of the potential legal ramifications of blatant bias and how it could expose you and Wikipedia to legal action. Please bring it up to the Administrators. This is informational and I cannot threaten anyone as I have no grounds to take legal action. It is simply informational and I have sent the letter, because I feel this goes way beyond simply disallowing edits, it it an organized attempt to defame, which is quite obvious. This is dangerous ans has no place on Wikipedia and their legal team needs to be made aware of this. Vermicious Knids? (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Vermicious Knids?

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 to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. HighInBC 15:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment certainly seemed to have the intention of having a chilling effect. If you want to pursue legal matters then that has to be done off of Wikipedia. If you agree to stop acting in an intimidating fashion towards our editors I can reverse the block. HighInBC 15:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are able to point out specific concerns about potentially innapropriate content we are happy to look at it. Your threats are getting in the way, but we are still concerned about possible issues. Please try to explain your concerns without engaging in threats and we can address them. HighInBC 15:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In the future, it would be better to bring your concerns up on the article talk page or at the biographies of living people noticeboard instead of edit warring or going straight to Wikimedia's legal team. Wikipedia and (most of) it's editors are well-aware of the legal issues when it comes to living people, which is why there's a policy on it, and there are plenty of editors willing to help fix these problems so long as it's made clear exactly what's problematic. clpo13(talk) 16:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the information clpo13 in the future I will pursue that avenue, hopefully that will not be necessary and we can correct this page and restore neutrality. 17:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)User:Vermicious Knids?

Question Did you really send a certified letter to our legal department? "I have sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia notifying them of the intent of those on this page to defame a notable person, which exposes Wikipedia and its principles and any editors involved in potentially dangerous actions that can lead ultimately to damages both real and punitive." --John (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Vermicious, you were not blocked because of the content of your edits to the article. You were blocked for trying to intimidate other users with legal action. Indicate that you are aware that what you did was in violation of Wikipedia policies, that you feel bad for violating these policies, and that you have no intention of pursuing any such legal action, and you will be unblocked. (I assume -- your above two consecutive failures to do this might make admins unwilling to unblock based on you suddenly doing exactly what I am telling you to do, as it might look insincere.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion
Your case is being discussed at this noticeboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What we can do
We are happy to take your concerns seriously. You can describe specific issues you have with any of our article here and we will look at them. Ultimately any content decision will be made by the community.

If you agree that you will not engage in any sort of intimidating behaviour, including comments that could be interpreted as a legal threat then I can unblock your account. You will then be allowed to talk on the article talk pages about your concerns, in a non threatening manner.

We are a collaborative project and our volunteers should not be subject to intimidation, we will not tolerate it. If you can accept that let us know and we can move forward. HighInBC 03:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You still haven't addressed the issue that you were blocked for: You may not make (or imply) a legal threat against other editors. I agree volunteers need not be threatened does not satisfy the requiemenents of WP:NLT.  Something to the effect of I will not make or imply that I am seeking legal action against other editors or the encyclopedia at large.  If you have an objection to content you can discuss it or use WP:OTRS to communicate in the "official way" with people who are specifically trained to address those types of complaints. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Once 's concerns are addressed I have no objection to the block being reversed by any admin. HighInBC 04:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree [User:Hasteur|Hasteur] and apologize for not stating clearly before that I will not make legal threats, real or implied, against any of the editors, administrators or Wikipedia. I have read and better understand the WP:NLT policies of Wikipedia. Vermicious Knids? (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[Vermicious Knids?]


 * I have undone your block. You are welcome to detail your concerns at the talk page of any given article. Please use reliable sources to show errors or omissions. As long as you don't attempt intimidation we are happy to hear your concerns. Ultimately editorial decisions are made by consensus of the community though. Welcome back, I hope we can move on from this. HighInBC 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)