Cromercrox
August 2009
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Henry Gee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Right to be forgotten
editI have received an email response from WMF Legal regarding your invoking the "right to be forgotten" and they pointed to this:
- Wikimedia Foundation (June 2016). "Requests for Content Alteration & Takedown". wikimedia.org. Retrieved 20 January 2017.
While the vast majority of content disputes are resolved by users themselves, in some extreme cases the Wikimedia Foundation may receive a legal demand to override our users.
They further point out that none of the requests have been granted; that it is up to community consensus to decide whether or not it is appropriate to delete an article, whether or not the request was made by the subject of the article; and, that there may even be cases where the law doesn't actually apply.
Regarding libel, always remove unsubstantiated claims by Wikipedian editors without discussion. Uncited claims that are said to be the opinion of outside sources or commentators should also be removed, but first you should try to source them or ask for others to attempt to do so on the talk page. See WP:BLP for more. Any edits by an editor who is—or is closely connected to—the subject can be seen as problematic (see WP:COI), so be careful. Properly sourced (WP:RS) claims must stand, however, as they are important for establishing how the subject is regarded by their peers, the media, or the world generally, etc. See WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR for the core policies and WP:N for how notability is defined.
Sorry if this isn't to your liking but that is how it stands at present. But consensus can change... And please don't shoot the messenger! Best regards Iadmc (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)