User talk:Abcorn

John Schnatter

You might want to look for a citation next time rather than just deleting a line. Also - since that inforamtion was found in the 2011 Corporate Annual 10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange commission, you might want to watch you use of the term slander. Calling something slander, when it isn't, is libel. which is legally actionable.

The information in question now has two sourcable citations. Jjk (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to post a quick reply to Jjk's post by stating that removing unsourced content is allowable and encouraged until it can be sourced per this statment by Jimbo Wales. Furthermore, a statement is generally only considered libelous if it is made maliciously, and if he believed that he was removing negative statements that were not true (and thus slandering the reputation of the subject) it is unlikely that they were made maliciously thus limiting their possible interpretation as libel. Also, although I don't think you meant to be threatening when pointing that out I would caution you about WP:NLT, lest you accidently say something that could be construed as a threat when it is not meant to be (Note that I'm not trying to accuse you or imply anything I am simply trying to provide a friendly reminder :) ). Best, Mifter (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mifter is correct. Considering the big controversy over his political views, I don't see what the number of employees in his company has to do with "Politics", which is the heading that it is under. --Abcorn^talk 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)