User talk:Lawline

All of these comments have been deleted because User Lawline is blocked and no longer desires to be a part of the Wikipedia community

You are blocked from editing Wikipedia, because you made a legal threat. I've done my best to understand what you were trying to do with your edits, though you still have not clearly explained them, and taken some more useful actions than the disruptive actions you took. I'll say goodbye to you. Have a lovely day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted your personal comments because they are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I do not like the attitude of some of the Editors at Wikipedia and no longer desire to be a part of this community.

Good Bye,

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lawline (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You have violated my First Amendment Right of Free Speech. Per Wikipedia Policy, libelous content should be removed immediately. See Wikipedia:libel Under Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. See also Wikipedia:legal threats Lawline (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, Wikipedia requires all information about living persons to be reliably sourced. Since you've been blanking whole articles, and I cannot find anywhere that you've explained what specific information you are claiming is inaccurate, I can't help you make that happen. If you can clearly explain what material you are objecting to, I'd be happy to look at it, and remove it if is not adequately sourced. Unfortunately, because you have chosen, instead of communicating clearly, to make a legal threat, this account remains blocked until after your lawsuit has concluded, as Wikipedia policy requires. It would have been much faster and more effective to simply communicate the problem clearly with other people, but if you prefer the legal route, that is your choice to make. Please note that the first amendment does not have anything to do with Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not an arm of the United States government. Please, if there is incorrect information that does not have a reliable source here at Wikipedia, explain clearly what the information is, and in which article or articles, so or someone else can remove it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you are not counsel for Wikipedia, then you should not be giving your legal opinion.

Are you the Legal Department for Wikipedia? Are you an expert in the law of defamation and libel? What is your source for stating that the First Amendment only applies to actions of the United States government? Please be advised that individuals have a private right of action for libel against newspapers and other publications, including Wikipedia. See http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

Please be advised, that declined unblock comments are one of the few things you may not delete from your talk page. The rules are found in WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant now as I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and you can feel free to delete any of my articles or contributions, and to delete my account.

My source for stating that the First Amendment only applies to actions of the United States government is the United States Constitution. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress has not made any laws regarding your editing of Wikipedia, nor is it likely to do so. In fact, interestingly, making a law requiring Wikipedia to publish your work would be a violation of the first amendment, and thus illegal in the United States. Accounts cannot be deleted for technical reasons. I have already nominated several of the articles you were working on for deletion, as I said in the message you removed from this talk page. Even though you have not spoken politely to anyone, and have not clearly explained your desired edits anywhere, I've done my best to help you as well as I could. A 'thank you' would be nice. I did spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out what you were trying to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And, no, I'm not Wikimedia's legal counsel. As you are going ahead with your lawsuit against Wikipedia, you should definitely have your attorney contact him or her. Since you never explained what exactly you thought the 'libel' was, I have had to guess. It's okay that you decided not to explain it to me, but you will need to explain it clearly to your attorney. You do have a legal right to sue Wikipedia. My private opinion is that you are not likely to win such a suit, but then, I'm not an attorney, just a volunteer who tried in good faith to help you with your problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)