User talk:Lm945

An additional message to you has been placed on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gajaad (talk • contribs) 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We placed a message on the discussion page where you had written a message. We requested that you please stop removing the fatheroflions.org link. You wrote a message the day before stating that persons should not be mentioning Gareth Patterson in the film section with the Walk with Lions movie. We have not added his name after reading your comments. However you continue to remove the fatheroflions link from the link section.

Again, it is requested of you to please cease continuing to remove the link to the George Adamson information site fatheroflions.org from the link section on the wikipedia George Adamson page. Of the links on this George Adamson page the fatheroflions link is the most relevant and the site offers extensive information about George Adamson. Also please discontinue removing reference links to the fatheroflions.org films and books link and replacing it with a link to the commercial site Amazon. It is our understanding that directly linking to commercial sites is not allowed.

July 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Anne Rice, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Rice. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lm945. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Anne Rice, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Anne Rice, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Rice[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lm945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

We are Anne Rice's attorneys. The deleted material contained inaccurate factual information. For security reasons, it was appropriate to delete the area where Ms. Rice lives, and her signature. The material was deleted with Ms. Rice's approval. I have posted this information to MikeWazowski three times. He has repeatedly deleted my explanation and re-instated the deletions to Ms. Rice's page. I have also informed him that Christine Cuddy, of the law firm of Kleinberg Lange Cuddy & Klein LLP has been Ms. Rice's attorney since 1976. A fact which is easily verifiable by Googling the names Anne Rice and Christine Cuddy. Please re-instate our changes, as well as my editing privileges.

Decline reason:

Per our policy, user accounts are to be used by one person only. The use of we and our in your request would appear to contravene policy (see WP:NOSHARE) so not only will I not unblock you, I can see no reason that the block shouldn't be extended. If you are indeed an attorney representing Ms. Rice, you may contact OTRS with your concerns. —DoRD (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per WP:COI, if you represent Anne Rice, then you should have been taking much more care in direct edits to the article, seeking consensus first on the article talk page. You were provided information about WP:COI already in a warning further up on this talk page.

I am also confused, are you now claiming to be "Christine Cuddy"? Because a few years ago in this edit you claimed to have a different name.

Lastly - please note that the evidence of legal representation is fundamentally flawed. I could claim to be Barak Obama, president of the United States of America. As proof, if you Google "Barak Obama" and "United States of America", you will find multiple hits for those names together. See the problem here with this sort of claim? The association of the names given is simple to prove - not so much the association to the person making the post on talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent history on the article, forgive me if claims of lawyers are met with a lot of skepticism. As for your claims of "inaccurate factual information", such claims would best be discussed on the talk page before removal, especially when others object to their removal. I took a look at the deleted links, and the appeared to be from independent reliable sources, and they appeared to corroborate the claims - what specifically was "inaccurate factual information"? As to the current area where Ms. Rice lives, had you paid attention, you would note that I did leave that out when I reverted your other removals, so that point is no longer valid. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If your claims of representation of the subject are accurate, you may also be interested in reviewing WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anne Rice[edit]

I am not Christine Cuddy. I am Ms. Cuddy's assistant. Ms. Cuddy does not have a Wikipedia account. When this issue about personal identifying information (signature, home address) being posted to the page of Ms. Cuddy's client, Anne Rice, was brought to our attention, I offered to make the changes using my account. If this was inappropriate, if we should have opened an account for the law firm, then I apologize. However, the personal identifying information on Ms. Rice's page is a serious security issue, and needs to be addressed. Lm945 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, you should not have created an account for the law firm - group accounts are not permitted. It was your statements of "us" and "our" that implied this account was also a group account, and could have resulted in a longer block.

On the article - there are a few ways to address your concerns. The first is to discuss the desired changes, listing the specific sentences where you have concerns, on the article talk page at talk:Anne Rice. As you represent the subject of the article, you have a clear conflict of interest, so should limit your direct editing of the article to minor cleanup, it's better in these cases to gain consensus on the talk page to get others to make the edits.

Alternately, it's also possible to contact either a helpdesk, or send an email to the address listed at: Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)

Please note, however, that there is a fairly small, carefully selected group who has access to that email account - as a result, requests submitted through email can take a while to be reviewed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anne Rice[edit]

Barek,

Understood. Ms. Cuddy (I'll try to avoid using "us" and "our" in the future) has sent an email to the address you provided.

I think you can understand Ms. Rice's concern when she learned her home address (even a former address) was posted on her Wikipedia page. Given the prevalence of stalkers -- and especially celebrity stalkers -- it was imperative this be addressed sooner rather than later.

If something like this occurs again, how would you recommend handling it? I realize your procedure is to essentially edit and/or delete by committee. However, when someone's personal safety is at risk, I think an expedited procedure is required.

Lm945 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(note: sorry in advance for the following being so long)

Unfortunately, the only formal documented processes available are outlined at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). The quickest option listed on that page is likely posting a message to the helpdesk, which has several people monitoring it, so someone is likely to at least get the ball moving fairly quickly. However, it can still take time for some changes to be agreed upon. We do have a site policy related to biographies of living persons which can be found at WP:BLP - so if you can identify a specific portion of that policy which the sensitive material violates - it can result in faster agreement to get the material removed. I'm sorry that it requires learning site policies - but knowledge of the material outlined in that policy can help to accellerate desired changes being made.

I also wanted to mention, regarding the existing block ... it should expire automatically in a day or two, after which this account's ability to edit pages other than this talk page will be automatically restored.

On a side issue, as some helpful advice, a quick word of caution on an issue that comes up from time-to-time on pages related to biographies of living persons. If/when you post to the helpdesk or article talk pages, it's fine to mention that you represent the client (in fact, per our conflict of interest policy, such disclosure is encouraged) - but be cautious not to use words that someone could view as legal intimidation. Should any issues develop in the future that is perceived to warrant legal action, please do not mention it in any discussions or edit summaries within Wikipedia, even if it is contemplated or being actively pursued. No one can prevent you, your employer, or your clients from taking legal action should an issue ever arrise where any of you see it as necesary; however, bringing up the possibility of such action being taken, planned to be taken, or contemplated to be taken can be viewed as a form of intimidation in discussions and content disputes, which goes contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. As a result, Wikipedia has a no legal threats policy which generally results in the account that makes such threats being blocked from editing until the threat is withdrawn or until the case is resolved in courts.

I just wanted to mention that issue so that you were aware should issues like this one arrise in the future. We all know that biographies of living persons can be a very sensitive subject, which is why so many policies, guidelines, and internal discussions are documented in the "see also" section at WP:BLP. Because of the sensitive nature, nerves can result in rapid escallation of issues, which unfortunately can sometimes result in delays for appropriate changes being made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a different issue, for the signature image, even after removing it from the article, the image would still be stored on the servers (just not directly visible). However, the image is not stored on Wikipedia. Instead, it is stored on a sister website, the Wikimedia Commons. In practical terms, that means a different group needs to be contacted to have the image file completely deleted from their servers.

As a sister site, much of their processes are similar to Wikipedia - but the details are slightly different. Unfortunately, that means I can't provide much guidance on the process to get the image deleted.

A starting point to learn what steps need to be taken would be to email that group at permissions-commons

wikimedia.org and expresses your concerns with the signature image named File:Anne Rice signature 2010.jpg ... they should be able to explain what processes they have for assisting with deleting sensitive content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lm945. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB^gab 14:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lm945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I being blocked for something which occurred and was resolved eight years ago? Lm945Lm945 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lm945, as linked in the block message above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lm945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for the edit to Meital Dohan's page is identical to the reason for the edit to Anne Rice's page eight years ago. Meital Dohan is a client and requested that her birth date be deleted. Celebrities should have the right to not have personal information on their pages if they so choose. Please remove it. Lm945 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you are editing on behalf of a client, where is your declaration as required by Wikipedia's Paid Editing policy per the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid editor. Nor am I an employee of Ms. Dohan's. I am an employee of her attorney. What is wrong with a celebrity such as Ms. Dohan wanting to protect her privacy? Lm945

Being an employee of her attorney makes you a paid editor by the rules of WP:PAID, and you were editing with a Conflict of Interest and in defiance of WP:PAID and of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. You must also not use multiple accounts in your violation of WP:PAID. Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with a celebrity wanting to protect her privacy, just that *you* can not make the edits directly and that *you* must work in accordance with WP:PAID policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lm945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was NOT involved in any edit warring. I do NOT have multiple accounts. I rarely edit anything at all. I originally created a login in order to create a page for Tony Fitzjohn and to monitor associated pages (George Adamson and Mkomazi National Park) when I was executive director of The Tony Fitzjohn/George Adamson African Wildlife Preservation Trust (which is a non-profit, I was never paid by them for my work). Since I came to work for the law firm, I've made minor edits to (I think) two pages. BOTH removing personal information and BOTH at the clients' requests). That's it. This is also the first I've heard the term "paid editor." If I need to change my settings to make me a "paid editor," kindly provide me with instructions on how to do so. Lm945 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been repeatedly pointed to WP:COI since 2011. Claiming that this is the first time you've heard the term, "paid editor", won't fly here. You've been aware of this since 2011. Stop, read WP:COI and WP:PAID in detail, then come back and tell us how exactly you'll abide by these. Yamla (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lm945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read ALL of the above. "Paid Editor" was never mentioned to me until two days ago. I do not appreciate being called a liar. Lm945 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please do not use the unblock request to continue discussions or for general comments. See WP:GAB. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To respond to your comment "Paid Editor" was never mentioned to me until two days ago", there in an entire section titled "Paid Editing" within the first few paragraphs of WP:COI, which has been mentioned to you, repeatedly, over the years. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of your last block, there wasn't much in terms of paid editing controversies, and so it wasn't a concern then. What happened was two paid-editing firms egregiously abusing Wikipedia, which in turn led to a Terms of Use change and a crackdown on paid editing by requiring disclosure from that point onward and blocking everyone who didn't. The onus is on you to keep abreast of the rules, and since M277 and OM both wound up on the news as a result of their blocks, you should have made sure you were alright at that point. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So who exactly is your employer, and how are you associated with User:ASAPR2016? Huon (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]