User talk:Walteriarecords

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Walteriarecords (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason given, but per below this is declined per WP:NLT. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It seems the facts that I can present won't be allowed to be presented here which does not make the article accurate. the picture submitted I did not submit and is not owned by Dan DeWald who actually took the picture from another website that he has no access to either. He has done this once before and created fake pages and profiles.

Slander is a ground for a lawsuit and I have a right to equal rebuttal (fairness doctrine) not given here. Blocking me denies my rights under the fairness doctrine. I only asked for the changes I made to stand to remove the slander done to me here and you guys allowed it to continue the process for protection is way too complicated for someone to understand.

The last edit I had done should stand as it is the most accurate of article in question and if that can't be done with the picture removed then yes I have no choice but to sue for copyright infringement if need be this is not a threat. The article was not used for publicity purposes but to note the actual achievement of having the most #1 hits on a weekly published chart which has been verified by America's Got Talent period! Not the words "Self proclaimed" this is where the slander note here is by wikipedia not by me here. I am the victim of the vandalism here not wikipedia. I only asked to be allowed to fix this false statement without penalty.

June 2011[edit]

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).

Walteriarecords (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You need to unblock me as I have the actual facts that the last editor does not! The last editor is slandering me here and has some facts in error in which under my first amendment right to free speech, I have that right to correct and if necessary if I am not allowed to correct them I will take legal action if I am not unblocked. I didnt write the article and I have the right to have the facts presented properly!

Decline reason:

The first amendment doesn't apply on Wikipedia, and making threats of legal action is a definite ground for blocking anyway. Otherwise, I would have suggested an application for unblocking to change your username. Peridon (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Perhaps a few words of clarification may help.

In order to avoid legal problems which might ensue if someone were to edit Wikipedia while in a legal dispute with Wikipedia, the policy is that as long as legal action is pending, threatened, or in progress, the user in question cannot edit, and the account must be blocked to ensure that is so.
Your understanding of the first amendment to the United States constitution is inaccurate. That amendment says that the United States government may not take action preventing expression of free speech, not that the owners of a privately owned publishing medium (such as Wikipedia) do not have the right to choose what to publish and what not to publish. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you wish to publish something slanderous???? Is that your intent????

Wikipedia does not want to publish anything slanderous; we actually have a policy, called WP:BLP, which always reminds us that living people come first, due to the potential harm Wikipedia may cause. Under that policy, every statement that could be considered contentious and is either unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed. Here on Wikipedia, we strive not to hurt living people; however, we operate using a consensus-building mechanism, which means that we try to talk things over and come to an agreement that way. If you threaten to sue, we have no choice but to block your account, to ensure that all legal communication take place through the proper channels and because legal threats can have a serious chilling effect, making it harder for the editors involved to freely reach a consensus.

We are not trying to bully you, here. If you believe you have been wronged, please retract the legal threat and calmly explain why you feel defamed and how you'd like to have the article edited or, alternatively, contact WP:OTRS; you can do that, following the instructions listed here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Winston[edit]

Since when do you have the right to delete a historic celebrity page in which having the subject in question is very important in the Folk Music world and you delete it because you don’t like it??? I don’t think you understand Folk Music in the States and therefore you shall have no right to delete American pages when you know nothing about the subject. The subject in question also appeared in the American Version of Britian’s Got Talent called “America’s Got Talent!” They verified the facts that you refuse to accept and therefore took it upon yourself to delete the page.

Unless you wish to get sued you need to reinstate the page, issue an apology to me and inform the editors to protect the page and allow The subject to defend himself with the rightful edits. You may have freedom of the press but we also have the right to right the wrongs either by words or by force if necessary to get this page restored accordingly! — Walteriarecords (talk · contribs) [via e-mail to RHaworth]

You should be very grateful that I have condescended to respond to you at all. You have a blatant COI and we prefer you not to be contributing at all about Walt Winston. Also legal threats are usually considered grounds for blocking an editor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Given your comment above of "we also have the right to right the wrongs either by words or by force"... your repeated threats of legal action are expressly prohibited, and threats of violence (whether specifically targeted against the editor to whom you sent the e-mail above or not) will not be tolerated. I have revoked access to your talk page to prevent any further inappropriate logorrhea on your part. If you wish to communicate further regarding any issue you might have, please contact ArbCom directly. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]