Hutchingsforsenate

February 2019

Hello, Hutchingsforsenate. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Lynn Hutchings, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 23:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Beebleblrox and CrispyCream27,

I was alerted to accusations on a Wikipedia page with my name on it. I tried to delete the accusations as they are meant to hurt not to inform. They are libelous and should be removed. The accusations are not true and should not be placed on anyone's.

Thank you

How are people allowed to put "accusations on a persons public information without verifying the information is true? Accusations were just that, and if you were to follow the trail, you would see that those accusing only want to inflame the public view of a person, not tell the truth.

Please help by removing the controversial material. Or notify the person 307.316.0858

Since you brought it up, verifibility is indeed a cornerstone of how Wikipedia content is generated. The way this is done is by citing reliable sources that have already reported ont he subject. That is exactly the case here, both sections you tried to remove were supported by citations to such sources.

And there is absolutely zero obligation to notify the article subject of such changes. This is an encyclopedia, not social media, article subjects do not "own" articles about themselves, in fact it is quite the opposite. I happen to be a member of the oversight team here and if this were libel by any reasonable definition I would remove it, and delete it from the page history so nobody could see it, but that simply isn't the case. The death penalty comment in particular seemingly took place during an open legislative session, so what you did or did not say should be a amatter of public record, and I was easily able to find multiple additional sources verifying as much, so your argument is fairly unconvincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of incomplete data

News article are not confirmation, but defemation of character. Because this news is all over the internet, my husband and i are getting calls all hours of the night and day cursing me out kver a lie. Also i have gotten over a two hundred pages of email calling me nigger, b@%ch, c@nt, slave, f-you etc. Again, all over an accusation. I have removed several nasty comments on facebook. I have received nasty email from as far away as Germany. I have been threatened with bodily harm and been told, because of these false accusations "they want to ruin me".

As for the comment on the death penalty go to my website email me and i will send you the audio. I said a lot more than these two sentences and was actually telling the senate what me and another senator were talking about in a previous conversation. He mentioned Jesus never said anything about killing people, he only talked about love. My comment was to mention Jesus never said to stop the death penaly, he actually died via the death penalty. I actually spoke twice curing the debate.

I do not believe it is kind or safe to put things on the web that may cause harm to someones life or wellbeing, especially when you only have part of the story or just one side. You would not believe the vicious behavior people exhibit against the states first black republican, female senator. Your keeping these article us will only add to the vicious behavior.

You decide. Hutchingsforsenate (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hutchingsforsenate: I think you should give Beeblebrox's comment another read. To be frank with you, you trying to remove evidence of your comments isn't fixing anything. It shows that you aren't willing to take ownership of your own words and actions. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)