User talk:Viktym

Pardon my interruption from your apparent busy lifestyle of removing other people's works on Wikipedia, but would you mind explaining to me why exactly you choose to target everything I post and remove it without any reason?

I have certainly not violated any rules by contributing the information I've posted. Yet for some unexplained reason, you continue to delete my work. What I have posted is simply current information, which is fact with evidence to back such. Even if you are having some hard time grasping this concept of corporate corruption, that still does not explain why you feel it necessary to delete my writings.

A response on this matter would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viktym (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not the place for the pushing of crankish rants and causes. The website mentioned in your insertions appears to have no internet linkage aside from a myspace page (yours?) (see WP:RS). The (private) lawsuits have all been dismissed out of hand, and have received no press coverage (see WP:UNDUE). A public company such as UPS would be required to disclose any significant potential hazards such as a (non-laughable) RICO lawsuit. On top of all this, your text grossly violates WP:NPOV, among other things. - Quietvoice 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quietvoice, these cases have been dismissed from State Courts and Appeals, however are currently pending with the U.S. Supreme Court. There has been media coverage of these cases via local media, the Al Sharpton National Action Network radio program as well as several other programs. There are currently 2 radio segments scheduled to be aired in the following 2 months via the Al Sharpton radio show. What I have posted is not in violation of the WP:NPOV as my statements have noted the lawsuits are CLAIMS, not FACT. Movie Gallery has ALLEGEDLY put the retailers at a disadvantage. As to linkage to IllegalAdvantage.com, Myspace is not the only website with a link to it, there are numerous more. You should research thing a bit more before making baseless statements. As to the page being "crankish", that is also false being that what I have posted is fact. There are lawsuits against the companies mentioned. My posting of material on Wikipedia is not for any cause other than to provide the information of what legal battles are currently pending with those said companies. Furthermore, none of what I have posted is a rant. Had I wanted to simply degrade the name of these companies by ranting about their corrupt activity, I would have done so at the beginning of the pages rather than at the bottom of each summary where it is least likely to be read by readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viktym (talk • contribs).

Given such media-friendly hooks as pornography and RICO lawsuits, and the high-profile public companies involved, having unspecified "local media" as the extent of the notability claim is absurd. Certainly everything mentioned on the plethora of blowhard American talkshows isn't immediately made notable. The seriousness of these lawsuits isn't enhanced when the lead attorney appears to be a minor[1] Alabama divorce lawyer with a sideline in "Animal Bites"[2]. Someone could sue companies X,Y, and Z for being in a criminal RICO conspiracy to use Martian mind control beams on the general populace and having buried Jimmy Hoffa's body and produce the same (if not greater) results in terms of court cases and coverage. If the Supreme Court actually reverses any of what appear to be nuisance or publicity suitsthat would be notable; likewise if any law enforcement action were taken against this widespread criminal activity taking place in 50 states in full public view. They are certainly not "famous RICO cases"! American public companies have statutory requirements requiring disclosure of materially significant lawsuits - check the 2006 annual report for UPS[3] shows 3 separate proceedings, none of them being this. As for the website, it appears to be an anonymous individual's site (the connection to the attorney Malcolm Newman is unclear), and is certainly not notable (Yahoo search, Google search). I could go on, but won't. I feel most Wikipedia editors would come to similar conclusions - feel free to discover for yourself. I'm sure others will be along to provide additional viewpoints, as I'll be reporting what was apparently some sort of attempt at tit-for-tat (this removal of Talk comments), but can actually be considered vandalism. Quietvoice 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the references you are seeking to insert to dismissed RICO litigations in articles about the companies named are not appropriate. Please do not re-insert them. Additionally, please do not blank comments made by other users on talkpages, especially in apparent retaliation for their disagreement with you on an unrelated matter. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to third Newyorkbrad and Quietvoice's comments. That website is not appropriate. The material you added is not appropriate. Blanking other people's talk page entries is in violation of policy. Please stop these actions. Georgewilliamherbert 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]