User talk:Lawline

Extended content

All of these comments have been deleted because User Lawline is blocked and no longer desires to be a part of the Wikipedia community You are blocked from editing Wikipedia, because you made a legal threat. I've done my best to understand what you were trying to do with your edits, though you still have not clearly explained them, and taken some more useful actions than the disruptive actions you took. I'll say goodbye to you. Have a lovely day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I have deleted your personal comments because they are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I do not like the attitude of some of the Editors at Wikipedia and no longer desire to be a part of this community. Good Bye, This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Lawline (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: You have violated my First Amendment Right of Free Speech. Per Wikipedia Policy, libelous content should be removed immediately. See Wikipedia:libel Under Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. See also Wikipedia:legal threats Lawline (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: Yes, Wikipedia requires all information about living persons to be reliably sourced. Since you've been blanking whole articles, and I cannot find anywhere that you've explained what specific information you are claiming is inaccurate, I can't help you make that happen. If you can clearly explain what material you are objecting to, I'd be happy to look at it, and remove it if is not adequately sourced. Unfortunately, because you have chosen, instead of communicating clearly, to make a legal threat, this account remains blocked until after your lawsuit has concluded, as Wikipedia policy requires. It would have been much faster and more effective to simply communicate the problem clearly with other people, but if you prefer the legal route, that is your choice to make. Please note that the first amendment does not have anything to do with Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not an arm of the United States government. Please, if there is incorrect information that does not have a reliable source here at Wikipedia, explain clearly what the information is, and in which article or articles, so or someone else can remove it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Are you the Legal Department for Wikipedia? Are you an expert in the law of defamation and libel? What is your source for stating that the First Amendment only applies to actions of the United States government? Please be advised that individuals have a private right of action for libel against newspapers and other publications, including Wikipedia. See http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html Please be advised, that declined unblock comments are one of the few things you may not delete from your talk page. The rules are found in WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC) It is irrelevant now as I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and you can feel free to delete any of my articles or contributions, and to delete my account. My source for stating that the First Amendment only applies to actions of the United States government is the United States Constitution. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress has not made any laws regarding your editing of Wikipedia, nor is it likely to do so. In fact, interestingly, making a law requiring Wikipedia to publish your work would be a violation of the first amendment, and thus illegal in the United States. Accounts cannot be deleted for technical reasons. I have already nominated several of the articles you were working on for deletion, as I said in the message you removed from this talk page. Even though you have not spoken politely to anyone, and have not clearly explained your desired edits anywhere, I've done my best to help you as well as I could. A 'thank you' would be nice. I did spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out what you were trying to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC) And, no, I'm not Wikimedia's legal counsel. As you are going ahead with your lawsuit against Wikipedia, you should definitely have your attorney contact him or her. Since you never explained what exactly you thought the 'libel' was, I have had to guess. It's okay that you decided not to explain it to me, but you will need to explain it clearly to your attorney. You do have a legal right to sue Wikipedia. My private opinion is that you are not likely to win such a suit, but then, I'm not an attorney, just a volunteer who tried in good faith to help you with your problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Friendy warning I have been nothing but friendly and polite to you. That includes leaving your talk page access open, because I think you have something that might be important or helpful to communicate, and I wanted to give you a chance to do so. But I do have the ability to lock this talk page from edits. Useful things you could say here include ideas for making the encyclopedia better, clear, polite explanations of what changes (within Wikipedia's rules) you wish you could make, and unconditional retraction of your legal threats. Unhelpful things include personal attacks, blanking your block template or unblock request templates, and more legal threats. I will leave this talk page open as long as you are using it in a helpful way. The next unhelpful edit you make, I will give up and disable your talk page access. It's entirely up to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC) If you want to disable this talk page, then just delete in its entirety because one way conversations are not helpful. Contrary to your claims of being friendly, polite and helpful, I find you very judgmental. Gosh, I'm sorry to hear that. I thought I tried really hard to encourage you to participate in a conversation, even though you were only sharing all-caps threats that I didn't really understand. I think I even helped make all the changes you wanted to make, using my knowledge of Wikipedia's rules to make them stick. I did that even though you were insulting and threatening me the whole time, and didn't do anything to help me understand what you wanted. I don't think there's any change you wanted to make to Wikipedia that I haven't done for you, in fact. In return, you call me 'judgmental.' To be honest, I can't tell if you have even read a single word of what I've said to you. My feelings are hurt, and at this time, I'm going to stop helping you and stop trying to help you. Good luck to you in your lawsuit against Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Not just you, but I believe that there are a lot of Editors at Wikipedia that are on a "power trip" and are not as nearly knowledgeable or competent as they may think. By the way, I never threatened a lawsuit, I merely warned certain Editors that their conduct could cause them and/or Wikipedia to be subject to a libel lawsuit. Power trip Lawline, just to let you know that I have closely followed your edits since I intervened to get your Louis J. Posner article deleted, and that I have to agree with, and wholly support, everything FisherQueen has said regarding your behaviour. --Kudpung (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) In my opinion, you are a rude and judgmental person. You are a prime example of a Wikipedia Editor on a "power trip" who should not be meddling in on articles involving the United States.

Seeing as your remarks here have been entirely unhelpful, you have consistently personally attacked other users, you have failed to unambiguously retract your legal threat, and you have commented that you do not actually wish to continue editing Wikipedia, I am revoking your ability to edit this talk page. If you wish to appeal the block in the future you may email the Arbitration Committee as described here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YippieMuseum-237x400.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YippieMuseum-237x400.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Joseph Posner

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Louis Joseph Posner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ukexpat (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Louis Joseph Posner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis Joseph Posner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dlohcierekim 15:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Louis J. Posner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis J. Posner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Secret ^account 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)