User talk:MultiWorlds

I would strongly suggest to stay within Wikipedias terms of use. Deleting sourced content is not a civil behaviour. Context23 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wiki policies, potentially defamatory or libelous material must be deleted immediately. MultiWorlds (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous statements

If a statement is comes from an acceptable/verifiable source and is backed up by references, by definition it is not libelous or defamatory. To delete such content outright is not within the scope of editing guidelines. In that case there should be a discussion. Context23 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wiki rules, we CANNOT print potential libelous statements, esp. from an individual with a documented history of untruths himself, such as my research has shown Patrick Elie to have. Elie was convicted of making false statements and imprisoned for it. This is basic Wiki policy. I do not know why this is so hard to understand for you. Sure, it is tough at first, but eventually we get the hang of it. Have been Wiki editor in various forms since 2008. MultiWorlds (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute

Patrick Elie's offense was putting inaccurate information on a weapons application. By no means does this constitute a reason to delete links to a newspaper article written by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Context23 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Elie was also convicted of impersonating a diplomat, and the statements he makes about Deibert reach the bar of potential libel. MultiWorlds (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deibert

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Deibert. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deibert

You should take your concerns to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Just say what you said on my talk page there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MultiWorlds (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MultiWorlds. As you may have noticed, I blocked Context23 (talk · contribs) for violating the three-revert rule to introduce those problematic links into the article. Although you also went over the limit, I won't block you as you were making good-faith efforts to protect a biography of a living person. In the future, though, to prevent situations such as this from escalating, request a third opinion on the BLP noticeboard early on, or request protection. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb87. I am embarrassed to say I only found out about the BLP noticeboard today. I will definitely us it in the future. MultiWorlds (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libel re Michael Deibert article

Please do show how the references used in the Deibert article on Wikipedia could be construed as libelous. The come from respected and long established print media with a track record and as far as I can discern, Deibert himself has not proven libel nor has he taken any action against the journalists and their publications.

In light of the fact that these articles are mirrored on many media web-sites and no case of libel can be made, why do you object to them as defamatory.

Curiously enough, a link to an article by respected former Haitian anti-drug official and grass-roots/human rights activist Patrick Elie, had been deleted by you repeatedly, because you labeled it as potentially libelous. This link was restored by you seemingly contradicting earlier claims. Can you offer any insights into this inconsistency on your part. Thank you in advance for what I hope can be a fruitful discussion. Context23 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Context23, and glad you've calmed down a bit. It appears the Deibert did accuse Elie of libel here and apparently responds to his claim with a third party source. As already noted by others, someone not remembering being on the steps of a church on particular day does not rise to BLP standards. It seems important to you to present a critical view of Diebert's work, but I think the New Left Review article does that well and much more convincingly than the other two articles you have attempted to link to both of which, in my view, cross the line into potentially libelous. Somebody writing an article that you happen to agree with doesn't make their opinion noteworthy for inclusion. Diana Barahona, for instance, is mentioned almost nowhere with regards to Haiti if one does a search on Google Scholar, which is the same case with Justin Podur when it comes to Haiti (he appears to be some sort of forestry professor or something). MultiWorlds (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]