User talk:Wjs of edmonton

March 2016

Hello, I'm Chrisw80. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nik Richie seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nik Richie. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nik Richie, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Nik Richie was changed by Wjs of edmonton (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85367 on 2016-03-26T02:12:39+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris. With all the legal on his description, I would hardly have to quote why I corrected it as a defamatory site. We want the truth posted, right? I understand your previous concerns. All his quotes a defamatory in nature. I could put a link to his website? Can you please insert my new edits? Unless you believe his site is not defamatory in nature and he is constantly getting sued because of it.

And please, don't talk to me about vandalizing Nik Richie. Your free to phone the FBI and confirm about him being investigated. I hope that came across okay?

Hello there Wjs of edmonton. All facts on Wikipedia need to be sourced from Reliable Sources. The Daily Mail is NOT considered a reliable source. Wikipedia articles also must be written in a neutral point of view, your edits do not fit within this criteria. Also, you are marking your edits as "minor" when they most definitely are not. Please do not continue making these edits. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nik Richie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also, WP:BLP requires us to err on the side of caution, especially with terms like defamatory in the description of people. So, you really should get some widespread support, via the talk page, before changing that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this to CNN

I recently contacted wikipedia to change the following at this address. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nik_Richie

Existing first paragraph content Nik Richie (born Hooman Karamian,[1] February 12, 1979),[2] previously known as Corbin Grimes,[2] is an American blogger, author,[3] and Internet personality.[2] Richie is best known for his gossip website TheDirty.com which he began in 2007 as DirtyScottsdale.com.

To this

Nik Richie (born Hooman Karamian,[1] February 12, 1979),[2] previously known as Corbin Grimes,[2] is an American blogger, author,[3] and Internet personality.[2] Richie is best known for his defamatory site TheDirty.com which he began in 2007 as DirtyScottsdale.com. Richie quotes third party content to enforce his defamatory comments against private individuals.

Their responce Also, WP:BLP requires us to err on the side of caution, especially with terms like defamatory in the description of people. So, you really should get some widespread support, via the talk page, before changing that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need widespread support. Your calling a defamatory site a gossip site. Now you can explain to the public why you are doing so.

CNN does not govern Wikipedia's editing policies. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you're alleging that CNN has called the website "defamatory", please provide link to the articles, plural, where they have done so. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wjs of edmonton (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC) A federal court ruled the site was defamatory and that Richie posts defamatory comments.[reply]

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d06d199d-3999-490d-b543-acbfcd81f872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs of edmonton (talk • contribs)

[copyright infringement (wholesale copy of text from above link) removed]

I think you get the point, then, on why WP:BLP says we should not call the site a "defamatory" site, as you suggest. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this

Nik Richie (born Hooman Karamian,[1] February 12, 1979),[2] previously known as Corbin Grimes,[2] is an American blogger, author,[3] and Internet personality.[2] Richie is best known for his defamitory site TheDirty.com which he began in 2007 as DirtyScottsdale.com. Richie quotes third party content to enforce his defamitory comments against private individuals.

Would be a very accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs of edmonton (talk • contribs)

Again: which sources specifically say that his sites are defamatory? —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e7a2a847-6e4f-4b96-afec-4366f4f70c53 Wjs of edmonton (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per that, the case is still on appeal—so it's probably best to avoid "defamatory" while the judgment may be reversed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, why post any content at all? You might be sued. Your site should say "every individual on here is sugar coated". he runs a defamatory site and your telling me I need a court ruling to state a fact. I have one. Then you tell me it's being appealed. Fred are you a real person, or do I need a court ruling to determine the obvious.

I forwarded all this to CNN. If Wikinpedia is a site where individuals can send a BS post about themselves, and you can't put anything that is true other than positive comments without a court ruling then you have to bring it to the publics attention. Here at wikinpedia we only post the good (no court ruling needed) and accurate things that are negative, we can't post without a court ruling. We have individuals that run hates sites specifically designed to defame people, but we ca't say that. Instead we have to BS you. NIk Richie doesn't run a hate site that publicly posts pics and defames people. No not Nik. He gossips online with his site about news, weather and cars.

NIk runs a site that post pics of people and he defames them with his comments. Fact. You want to publish BS, go right ahead. I forwarded it to CNN . I doubt anything will come of it though.

The next time to look around and say, theres a lot a crap in this world. Make note. You protect it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs of edmonton (talk • contribs)

As C.Fred noted. We only report what third-party reliable sources say about an article subject - that is Wikipedia policy. We do not make non-neutral statements about article subjects that say that are defaming others. If you have multiple third party, reliable sources that states what you are suggesting, then please provide a link to it. If not, please stop. Again, please see reliable sources and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wjs of edmonton, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wjs of edmonton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Nik Richie. Laber□^T 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you talking about? I edited the BS. You protecting his BS post he submitted and not letting others edit the BS his submitted is noted. This will go higher up. You write like you words bring forth reality.

The next time you will do nothing. New IP address (it's static) new member.

And it's going above your head. You have no control over this situation other that to block this member (me) which I am discarding.

We will edit ever day in the meantime :-)

The edits will be accurate and neutral.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nik Richie. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]