95
edits
Changes
→Potentially defamatory claim
If you are going to say that someone [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=464872&oldid=128176 illegally took control of a site], then it should be substantiated with ironclad documentation, preferably third-party. I cannot have MyWikiBiz being used to propagate libel. Amend your content immediately, please. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] ([[User talk:MyWikiBiz|talk]]) 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to say that someone [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=464872&oldid=128176 illegally took control of a site], then it should be substantiated with ironclad documentation, preferably third-party. I cannot have MyWikiBiz being used to propagate libel. Amend your content immediately, please. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] ([[User talk:MyWikiBiz|talk]]) 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:That isn't libel. It is fact. The documentation is no longer available, but it was displayed previously. I am the legitimate owner of Wikipedia Review. It was hacked. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] ([[User talk:Blissyu2|talk]]) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:That isn't libel. It is fact. The original sites that proved it have been deleted but web archive has them and they are indeed ironclad proof. It has been accepted as fact for 8 years now. There is no real need to dispute them now. Just because Wikipedia lies about it doesn't mean it isn't true. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] ([[User talk:Blissyu2|talk]]) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)