User talk:Johnc1

Thank you for your recent contributions to Chad "Corntassel" Smith. Unfortunately, the additions you made were all either in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS, or they were in violation of WP:NPOV. Please discuss your edits on the talk page prior to inserting them again. If you wish to add the information from the newspaper, the article title, issue of the newspaper, and preferably a link to the article online will be helpful in gaining consensus that this addition meets verifiability requirements. thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you have added to the articles is unacceptable in tone and wording, and since there are not supporting sources it strikes me as something that puts Wikipedia in danger of being sued for defamation. Please do not include unsourced material, especially if it is defamatory of a living person. We can say unpleasant things about living people if they are supported by reputable sources, but without solid sources these are unacceptable. Guettarda 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are close to violating the three-revert rule. Your persistance in inserting unverified, potentially actionable charges is not supported. If you have sources, post on the talk page of the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of Wikipedia

Hi, the information you keep adding to Chad "Corntassel" Smith is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. You're free to cite already published, reliable sources if you want to include criticism of this person's performance, but we can't simply say "he is a dictator," because encyclopedias are supposed to be a neutral repository of information. Could you imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica saying, flat out, he's a dictator? Of course not. So please don't put such things inside our encyclopedia article. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Looking at your website, it's obvious that you are able to provide sources to support your arguments. Please consider extending the same courtesy here. While it's inappropriate to call Smith a dictator, it's valid to reference a source (e.g, a newspaper story or petition) complaining about his style of government. But remember we are supposed to be neutral, acting to report significant opinions and relying on reputable sources. It's obvious that you know what you are talking about, the the key to writing for Wikipedia is to write something that all parties would see as fair. We aren't supposed to assert opinions, we are supposed to report fairly on what others have said, and do it in balance (we can't present minority opinons as if they were held by the majority, for example). Please reconsider the way that you are trying to present information here. Thank you. Guettarda 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important message

Please be extremely careful when adding material to articles or talk pages that it does not involve defamation. Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. Your status here, whether as a signed-on user or as an anonymous IP, would not protect you. Someone you defame could get a court order instructing your service provider to supply your details to them. They could then sue you for damages. While Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act may protect Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted a defamatory claim on a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees has ruled that: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (Wikimedia privacy policy in full)

This notice has been left for you because another Wikipedia user suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims.

If you repeatedly defamed someone, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you find that you have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:

Remove the defamation from the article immediately.
Leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard saying that you have accidentally included defamatory claims in a named article or articles. (Don't repeat the claims. They will be able to see from your edit removing them what they were.) The claim will then be deleted from the page history.

Once that is done, and the defamation is gone completely from our records, the problem should be resolved.

Please only post verified materials when dealing with living persons. PeyoteMan 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi John. Unfortunately, I've had to block you for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's rule against reverting an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Please consider the possibility that what you're doing is inappropriate, and use this time to read Wikipedia's rules. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

Hello Johnc1, I reverted your recent edit to Chad "Corntassel" Smith. Your opinion about the tribal elections has no place in an article. And the the use of the word DICTATOR is defamatory, and breaks WP:BLP rules against malicious editing. Continued editing in this manner will result in a longer block. You have been warned about this already by several editors, so please take my comment seriously. regards, FloNight ^talk 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your action

Hello. I've blocked you for one week for inserting inappropriate and defamatory information into the article on Chad Smith. If you don't stop doing this, your editing privileges will be suspended indefinitely. There's a place for critical information in this article, but it must be presented properly. If you try to work within Wikipedia's rules, you will find you can get far more done than the way you're proceeding now. Please reconsider; if you come back after a week and start doing the same thing again, I'll block you permanently. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then how do I start me one of these things?

johnc1@netscape.com

An important message

Please be extremely careful when adding material to articles or talk pages that it does not involve defamation. Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. Your status here, whether as a signed-on user or as an anonymous IP, would not protect you. Someone you defame could get a court order instructing your service provider to supply your details to them. They could then sue you for damages. While Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act may protect Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted a defamatory claim on a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees has ruled that: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (Wikimedia privacy policy in full)

This notice has been left for you because another Wikipedia user suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims.

If you repeatedly defamed someone, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you find that you have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:

Remove the defamation from the article immediately.
Leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard saying that you have accidentally included defamatory claims in a named article or articles. (Don't repeat the claims. They will be able to see from your edit removing them what they were.) The claim will then be deleted from the page history.

Once that is done, and the defamation is gone completely from our records, the problem should be resolved.

He's at it again and wont stop. Sint Holo 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

Let's talk about the changes you want to make on the talk page of the article, okay. You need to provide verifiable reliable sources for the changes you want to make to this article. Because it is about a living person we need to take special care. I promise you that I will look at everything you provide and include as much as Wikipedia policy will allow us to use. I have no desire to make the article have any particular point of view. In fact, I know nothing about the subject and welcome the opportunity to learn more about the topic from you and other intersted editors. The article needs to provide all points of view that can be supported by reliable sources for the area of Smiths life that makes him notable.

If you do not do this you will be blocked again FloNight ^talk 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you make these edits once more without discussing why people are reverting them, I will block you indefinitely from participating in Wikipedia. Please discuss these reversions, or you will never understand the proper way to contribute to Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, you've been blocked indefinitely from editing here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]