Sarah W.

Woroniecki

Hello, I don't really understand why do you need to contact me privately. My talk page should be the proper scene to discuss the problems of that article. Regards, Poco² 20:32 28 feb 2010 (UTC

Poco,

I would like to be able to email you privately simply because the talk page is not the scene to discuss what needs to be said in response to the individual who has made recent posts on your talk page about my family. The article falls under the guidelines of Living Persons Biographies which specify that such situations need to be treated sensitively, respectfully and privately when nessecary. I will not be dicussing the article or any problems with it, since, obviously, my comments would be biased. I merely want to respond to the accusations made against me and protect my family's privacy as well as that of the individual speaking against us. I can understand your reluctance to post your private email address. However, I have this email set up specifically for such circumstances: sarahworoniecki@hotmail.com .

I would greatly appreciate it if you would write me there and allow me to explain the situation. I will keep it short and concise and will not abuse the privilege. Thank you so much for your time and attention!

Sarah W. (discusión) 22:30 3 mar 2010 (UTC)

Talking about someone behind their back is protecting their privacy? Why not do it openly so the world can see how manipulative and decietful you are, where the other party can't defend himself. Oh, maybe that's the point.

Sarah: In my eyes, you, as interested part, are violating this policy and this "on-the-way-to" policy. You cannot ensure the neutrality of the document and I have learned that there is concerns about some missing information in the article. I think that deleting the article is also for you a good choice. It could become a box of Pandora for your family, if other users add information (with proper references) that you wouldn't be pleased with and couldn't delete because would be in accordance with our policies. In addition, instead of improving the article with proper references, as we agreed, you spend your time in fruitless discussions and didn't touch the article all this time. Regards, Poco² 12:09 4 mar 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the point is that thru the intervention of the anonymous user it became clear that you are interested part in the article and shouldn't have even created it. We also have something like this in this Wikipedia. It should be known to you. In addition, we also count with this policy that you also violated. I asked you to include information that would prove the notoriety of the family and you didn't, best regards, Poco² 09:23 12 mar 2010 (UTC) PD:Furthermore if the information from the anonymus is right, creating the article could become a nightmare for you. Specially if that would be the information that could make the article in accordance with the notoriety policy.