User talk:Emergency responce
January 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Duke lacrosse case, you may be blocked from editing privileges. Quis separabit? 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a request for the arbitration administrators to take action against Wikipedia page " duke lacrosse case" for it violates Wikipedia standards as well as state and federal laws Wikipedia: No personal attacks The Wikipedia page "Duke lacrosse case" is an essay, which is subjected to publication laws. the editors and or the author violated these laws by making legally defamation claims : "The Duke lacrosse case was a 2006 criminal case in which three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape." Duke lacrosse case. Author: 18 January 2018 . wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_lacrosse_case&oldid=821043170 A claim is said to be “disputed” where there exists a bona fide dispute[i] asserted in good faith[ii] and where the subject matter is reasonably doubtful. see- US legal. What Constitutes “Disputed” Claim. https://accordandsatisfaction.uslegal.com/consideration/what-constitutes-disputed-claim/
U.S. defamation legal elements Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff; Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact; Acted either negligently or with actual malice. The editors of said page acted in malice to defame the victims by inserting disputed claims as facts. To ensure the ethical and legal standing of wikapedia it is requested the Arbitration board take action against Duke lacrosse case page either by correcting the legal flaws and or deleting the page.
January 2018
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Duke lacrosse case has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Duke lacrosse case was changed by Emergency responce (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.9489 on 2018-01-17T21:59:11+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Amortias (T)(C) 22:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Emergency responce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20364 was submitted on Jan 18, 2018 17:54:14. This review is now closed.