Difference between revisions of "Talk:LupineFox"
From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
(→Name removal while being a criminal suspect: new section) |
(→Name removal while being a criminal suspect) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Info was restored as it pertains to an ongoing public criminal investigation. Request of data removal is null and void as the information is needed for user searches. | Info was restored as it pertains to an ongoing public criminal investigation. Request of data removal is null and void as the information is needed for user searches. | ||
Removal of personal data, and the controversy section, can be removed if the user is found '''not guilty''' - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] ([[User talk:Spirou|talk]]) 15:31, 2 February 2017 (EST) | Removal of personal data, and the controversy section, can be removed if the user is found '''not guilty''' - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] ([[User talk:Spirou|talk]]) 15:31, 2 February 2017 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "needed for user searches?" Needed by whom? And for what purpose - one that outweighs the prevention of criminal death threats? I don't see any exceptions in the policies with that kind of wording or with regard to an ongoing public investigations. Is your justification arbitrary or is this a rule that was previously agreed on? Thank you. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] ([[User talk:Skippyfox|talk]]) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 17:12, 2 February 2017
Name removal while being a criminal suspect
Info was restored as it pertains to an ongoing public criminal investigation. Request of data removal is null and void as the information is needed for user searches. Removal of personal data, and the controversy section, can be removed if the user is found not guilty - Spirou (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "needed for user searches?" Needed by whom? And for what purpose - one that outweighs the prevention of criminal death threats? I don't see any exceptions in the policies with that kind of wording or with regard to an ongoing public investigations. Is your justification arbitrary or is this a rule that was previously agreed on? Thank you. skippyfox (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (EST)