User talk:MMXIV

Hello MMXIV, I cannot see why you undid the edit I made. It is unfortunate that it does not go in the favour of the individual whose article it is, but it is a court judgement that is openly available. Wikipedia should be a neutral source of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

You cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons , and indeed, it is binding to have well sourced information. I have cited the US court judgment from the website of the court itself. If you have any material to contest the authenticity of the judgement, I’d be happy to hear about it and would therefore rescind my edit myself.

-

Thanks Secretive lobbyist, I hope all is well. I agree completely that Wikipedia should be a neutral source of information, I love wiki! The reason I removed the piece is because of the following link, I am sorry if I did not reference my change properly.

Here is the dismissal of the case: https://stanhillcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Stipulation-of-Dismissal.pdf It was "dismissed with prejudice" meaning that the case was dismissed by the Judge, and that it is final, and cannot be brought back to court. Therefore the final judgement on this whole issue is that it was "dismissed". For this reason I think it may be considered a little misleading to describe it as you have.

I will make the correction, and reference it correctly this time, sorry again for not referencing properly...still a learning how much of Wiki works!

Do let me know what you think. Best wishes, MMXIV MMXIV (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thank you! This satisfies my query and is sufficient information in favour of your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretive lobbyist (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. MMXIV (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]