Carolrubensteinesq
Hi there. Wikipedia has many guidelines which need to be satisfied in order for an article to be included. The primary inclusion criterion is that of notability; the subject of the article must have received valid mainstream coverage, in a nutshell. Just because something is factual doesn't mean it has to be included. Quite the opposite, in fact. If something is to be included, it must be factual and verifiable. But that presupposes the subject passes the inclusion criteria first, which the information about Mr Walterschied does not seem to do.
In addition, your statement that you are internal counsel for Paramount is irrelevant. First because it doesn't much matter what position an editor holds outside of Wikipedia--except when that position leads them into a stark conflict of interest when it comes to editing or opining on policy. Second, I would strongly advise you to read our two policies on legal threats and how we take a very dim view of them. Thanks. // roux 23:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also note that there is no lawyer on the California Bar named Carol Rubenstein [1] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- The NY results aren't linkable, but she isn't on that one either Search page. Three Rubensteins in Michigan...none are Carol. [2]. --Smashvilletalk 06:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pprice1. Thank you. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
blocked
editYou have been blocked from editing because you have made this legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pprice1#User:Pprice1. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)