Talk:Alex Kelly (rapist)/Archive 1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by ToBeFree in topic Blanking by User:Jr2019
Archive 1

Notability

I think alex is notable now because of the tv-movie and the tv sows concerning the case. i think its more of improving the text about him.--Matrix17 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He gets out February 2008.John celona 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok interesting. in my opinion he deserves to stay where he is.--Zingostar 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
he is actually alreadi released if u alreadi read this exceprt properly he was released on good behavior i mean nice that the authorities chose not to prosecute the parents since they were aiding a fugitive. evidence of that was found in seceral photos the authorities found while searchign the Kelly house and a letter addressed to his girlfriend there but of course by the time authorities in sweden moved in to get him he left. we are only left to assume his parents tipped him off that they know he was there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.166.241 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Kelly (rapist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Kelly (rapist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Blanking by User:Jr2019

Can this be a scenario described here? Wikipedia:Don't_overlook_legal_threats#The_message ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: I was referring to this part:

Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it. Remember, you could be personally responsible for re-publishing libellous content. Not good.

All I saw was an immediate restoration of the blanked material. As there seem to be reliable sources for this article, restoring the content was probably correct. I just wanted to make sure that everyone at least considered this case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)