131Alex131
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.Phaedrus86 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Phaedrus86 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Phaedrus86 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
On 28 October 2006 you posted this on my talk page: "The student was not charged with unlawful imprisonment. This is a contemporaneous site thefore the hostage statement is libellous."
Read the Telegraph article cited in Germaine Greer at the end of the paragraph on the hostage incident. This article states about the student that Charges of causing actual bodily harm and unlawful imprisonment were withdrawn. This means that, before the charges were withdrawn, she was actually charged. Therefore the statement is true if the newspaper report is true. The newspaper concerned, the Telegraph, is a reputable news source. Your comment that "This is a contemporaneous site" is absurd when used in relation to an incident that occurred over 6 years ago. Taking all this into account, the "hostage statement" is NOT libellous. An unqualified individual claiming that something is libellous does not come anywhere near making it libellous. Kindly post opinions from qualified professionals, together with verifiable statement of their qualifications which would lead us to believe their opinions are credible. Until then, kindly desist from vandalising Wikipedia articles. Phaedrus86 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Was the person charged or weren't they? Reporting that someone is charged is a verifiable fact. If the person involved in the Greer hostage incident tried to claim loss of reputation it would get laughed out of court. Whether the offence was proved in court or not is completely irrelevant to reporting the fact of her being charged. You need to examine your logic and differentiate between the offence and the charge - two separate things. It would also help if you stayed away from amateur law - leave it to the professionals. Phaedrus86 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"The page previously read that the hostage was a fact. Absolute privilege only covers what is said in court."
- Right, so she was charged with unlawful imprisonment, contrary to what you claimed, and we follow the links and read how she was held captive...but we can't say on Wikipedia that she was held hostage. Absolute nonsense. Phaedrus86 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)