User talk:ChanceMFTrahan

Hello, I am new to wiki and see a page that can be speedily deleted as their sources are non-accredited and also are non-verifyable "facts" and are only hear-say. Thank you for your help.ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Which page is that? I would be happy to take a look at it and assess it. Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, ChanceMFTrahan. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article IsAnybodyDown?, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Auric talk 16:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The person whom created this article did it maliciously, I am not close to the subject but I am an expert on it. They are using

Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

To spam this page. These sources are not credible and my changes are justified with the facts, not from point of views.ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense. Please clarify.--Auric talk 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marc Randazza and AdamSteignbaugh and mostly everyone linked here are trying to Google search own my name using this page. Look for a public search for Chance Trahan and just tale a good look at what the results give you and you'll understand what exactly is going on. I am not involved in this page, I have proved this time and again and I have told them, demanded them and before all that asked them to right their wrongs and lies and they refuse to talk to me about it. No where am I cited by a reliable source as having anything to do with said site and they keep fabricating lies just to keep me on this page, they sit around ganging up.in chats plotting how to destroy people, if you think I am too close to the subject and what I am doing is wrong then why don't you take a good look for yourself and see because. I've battled over this since October and I'm finally winning and I'm not about to let anyone post lies about a subject they "think" they know about when its obvious they can't or won't discern fact from fiction. Adam Steignbaugh has me listed as living in Tucson, do a public search and you will see where I live. Adam is the only one on the face of the earth that thinks I live there apparently, cuz its on his site. I have never even been to Tucson... Are you kidding me? Do you understand yet? Cuz this is exhausting... ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not own this article. If you feel so strongly about this page, you can request it be deleted.--Auric talk 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Chance, I don't know why you say "they refuse to talk to me about it." This is flatly untrue: I'm more than happy to talk with you. I've offered (repeatedly) to correct any factual errors I've made in my coverage, if you will identify those errors. I've also offered you the opportunity to submit any statement which I would (and will) post without editing it. The only error you've pointed out (that you do not live in Tucson) is one that I've corrected. You can always contact me via email, letter, or phone -- my contact information is on the "about" page on my site. --Adam.steinbaugh (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another flat out lie by a pathological liar. Stop spamming my talk page. If you had anything to say to me worthwhile you've had over half a year to say it. I shouldn't have to tell you twice what's true and what's not. You didn't even verify your accusations and assumations and that automatically makes your "point of view" distorted. Conflict of interest. You have a very distoted view on the subject and therefore shpild be banned from posting anymore about it. Period... End of story. ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone to great lengths to verify the facts in my articles. You've never explained what, exactly, is false, except to say that you'll never tell me what's false until you sue me. I've never edited the "IsAnybodyDown?" article and don't intend to. I can't be "banned" from posting on the topic on my own site. Nevertheless, my offer remains open: feel free to explain any false statements of fact and I'll be happy to correct them or post your side of the story. Cheers. --Adam.steinbaugh (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation

Some of the material that you just posted on Talk:IsAnybodyDown? was in violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which addresses not only articles but unsourced controversial or accusatory statements about living individuals made on talks pages and elsewhere. The material has been removed. You may want to review that policy, and steer future comments appropriately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense Nat, are you sure you're doing the right thing here?ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is doing the right thing. You called another human (a "living person") a terrorist among other attacks, that violates WP:BLP. Also, since that person was an editor on Wikipedia, you violated WP:NPA in doing so as well. I strongly suggest you review your comments more closely and stick only to the content, not talking about other people or editors at all. I invite User:NatGertler to reply here to his intent as well, but I probably should've removed it when I replied. Charmlet (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Guess what I don't careChanceMFTrahan (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you continue with that attitude, and/or post another BLP violation, you may be blocked from editing. I'm giving you this as a warning, so please heed it accordingly. Charmlet (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am certain that I am doing the right thing in deleting those comments and encouraging you to understand the policy. The WP:BLP policy is for the protection of Wikipedia; not having it in place and enforced would open up this fine institution to certain legal problems. There are, however, plenty of places on the Internet where you can air your grievances, outside of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You used the template but didn't ask a question. If you wish to ask a question, feel free to ask it and readd the template. Charmlet (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)