User talk:Legend41

April 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

It's absolutely inconceivable that you would track down another editor and actually phone them. On top of that, it appears that you may have actually threatened legal action against them - again, inconceivable. Persons with WP:COI with a subject should not be editing articles about them - and you have proven why. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:25, 9 April 2013 (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).

Legend41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When my wife and I noticed that her wiki page was being edited by Jerome Kohl in an extreme fashion, I called him to congenially discuss his reasons. He was extremely defensive instantly, and refused my request to "work together as friends" regarding his concerns about her page. He has on several occasions wiped out her entire biography and early year sections. We have no understanding of his rights to do this since there are several references to support the information contained on the page. When I inquired about specific points to which he took exception, he refused to comment and instead stated that he would continue to remove the contents. Since we are not aware of which points he is contending, we are completely powerless to know what would satisfy this self-procalimed policer of the internet. Therefore, being completely helpless to defend my wife's wiki image during the time of a career-enhancing promotion, I felt there was no other course than to inform him that I may have to resort to involving my attorney because I am unaware of how else to communicate with such an incalcitrant person. We have done nothing to deserve his attentions and we need him to stop inserting himself into other people's respected and high-standing careers.

Decline reason:

You seem to have a rather dramatic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Turns out, Jerome was doing everything right, and you were doing everything wrong. Wikipedia articles absolutely require that content be verifiable by citations to reliable sources, published sources, independent of the subject of the article. If the verifiability of content is challenged by another editor, the editor who added the material is generally obligated to present such sources if he wishes to keep the material in the article. No special dispensation is given to the article's subject or the subject's spouse or other representatives. You are under the same obligation to cite published sources for challenged material, that every other editor is under. Wikipedia's goal is to be a serious reference work, and that means we cite published secondary sources. We are not your blog, and we are not a means of social networking. And finally, legal threats are absolutely forbidden. If you are pursuing or even threatening to pursue legal action against an editor in retaliation for their edits, you are not permitted to edit. Although I honestly have no clue what you thought that would accomplish. This is a private website and you have no right to free speech here. If you can convince an administrator that you understand all of that, you might be unblocked. It will also be required that you explicitly retract any legal threats you have made. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (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).

Legend41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see no dramatic difference in Erica Muhl’s references (or lack thereof) and the references of other contemporary composers which I just now randomly looked up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Rands ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta_Read_Thomas ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kraft). They show no more references to support their information than Muhl’s (which I did not write, nor do I think that being her souse provides me any special dispensation). Yet Kohl has not seen fit to wipe out their “blog” as you incorrectly described Erica’s page. Therefore, it is clear that this is not an objective policing by Kohl, but some other concern which he harbors. Since you, as an administrator, are now on board to review this matter I understand that there is no role for a lawyer – which is what I was intending to find out by contacting a lawyer in the first place, since you asked. Our whole purpose is find out how to allow valid and truthful information to be disseminated on the site without someone randomly choosing whose info stays and whose gets wiped out. I stated that I requested from Kohl as to which items he takes exception, yet no answer is given. If there is to be a full citation after each few words, which is certainly doable, then that would be highly inconsistent with the entries listed above. If Kohl is the expert musicologist he claims to be, then he is being quite remiss in allowing some composers pages to stay while selectively choosing to remove others. I would like to simply have Erica’s information not be targeted unfairly – which I see may not be possible. Legend41 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is mainly a procedural decline of your request, Legend41. As explained by Someguy1221 below, your request does not comply with the conditions set forth at WP:GAB. My decline is in no way a condemnation of your motivation or motives. Wikepedia has, by consensus, developed policies, guidelines and conventions with regard to editing here to attempt to assure dependable information for our readers. In the case of biographies of living persons we have a special policy to protect our project while attempting to guarantee some degree of common decency regarding the subject. If you have concerns with the content of this article, those concerns can be addressed. It is in your best interest to be unblocked to have the greatest influence on the article's content. Please do not raise content issues in any future unblock requests you may post. If you need help navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or need clarification of any of the points contined therein, simply post a normal message on this page and an administrator or experienced editor will attempt to provide the information you require. Tiderolls 03:54, 10 April 2013 (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.

In looking at your own actions, we honestly don't care what happens on other articles. Jerome is a volunteer - it's not his job to review every musical biography. Inconsistent application of policy is indicative only of inconsistent monitoring of articles, rather than of double standards. Furthermore, looking up Jerome's phone number and calling him was completely out of line, whether you knew it or not. If you want to be unblocked, you're going to need to do the following:

Explicitly retract any legal threats you have made toward Jerome
Agree to never contact another editor except through means made deliberately available (talk pages, the email link on the left of every userpage, or other means made clear on the editor's talk page)
Prove that you understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing
Prove you understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where editors are expected to work with one another in a civil manner. You can either agree to collaborate, or you can leave.

Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Muhl[edit]

Hi. My apologies for stepping in here, as having a lot of people offering advice is not necessarily as helpful as those offering it seem to believe. :) But be that as it may, I've been doing what I can to expand the article, and so thought maybe I should stop by.

Wikipedia has some strict sourcing requirements, but this is as much to protect the subjects as anything else. As anyone can potentially edit a page, the possibility that they will insert incorrect or even defamatory content is unfortunately real. To protect against this - especially where living people are concerned - Wikipedia requires that all claims about a person are sourced to something that is both reliable and verifiable. That way people who aren't experts on the topic can, if need be, confirm that it is accurate and remove it if not. The unfortunate side effect of this is to set a high bar for including information known to be accurate, but it is a necessary tradeoff. Because of how Wikipedia has evolved, there is a lot of content that doesn't meet this standard, but over time that will change.

So what seems to have happened is that you ran into this policy by adding true information that wasn't referenced. I've been over it and added what references I could, so hopefully things are improved, but I wasn't able to source all of it. (In particular, I'd love a source for the Whitaker Commission, but I haven't been able to find one yet). I'm very happy to work with you to further develop the article if it would help - in particular, if you know of any interviews or reviews we could use that would be great! And if I can help in any way, just let me know here, and I'll do what I can to assist. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bilby for your assistance and your kind approach. The situation arose from the person who originally posted the content not understanding the proper citation protocol and then an over-exuberant volunteer wiping away entire content instead of offering assistance or asking questions. Again, my gratitude for your kindness. I will have our assistant track missing references which I will gratefully provide to you since it's unclear if I will be unblocked. Thank you again. Legend41 (talk)

Legend41, you don't need to add a category to edit this page. Look for the [edit] tabs to the right of the page at the section header. Note the use of colons to indent one's post denoting a response to the message directly above. Tiderolls 05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Also, keep in mind that sources need not be available online to be acceptable. Reliable sources taken from "dead trees" (print only), such as books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. are all fine as long as they satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline. If you want to use such a reference people can help you format them correctly and include the necessary information about them. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in regard to unblocking, there's no reason to assume that you won't be unblocked. :) As I understand it, the main problem is the possibility of legal action. Wikipedia has a policy of blocking people involved in legal actions - not necessarily to prevent them when they are warranted, but to make sure that the parties only engage each other through established channels. Otherwise Wikipedia would have a situation where people would be interacting here at the same time as they are working through the court processes, which would make the overall situation worse for both parties. So what Tiderolls and Someguy1221 are probably looking for is to know where things sit on that.

The other concerns are really about working within Wikipedia's processes. The processes are complex, but generally they work well if you know where to go for assistance when things get tricky. If you still wish to edit after being unblocked, which would be great if you do, you can always ask questions here, or I'd highly recommend the Teahouse, which is a very good place for getting advice when stuck. And you'll find that there are a lot of us who will be really happy to help develop the article. :)

While I have a opportunity, I just wanted say how happy I am that I had this chance to look into Dr Muhl's work. I picked up Range of Light last night, and while I haven't had the time yet to really sit down and listen the way I would like to, the second movement of Trucco particularly stood out. I'm looking forward to being able to spend more time with the music on the weekend. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]