User talk:Napoleongrl

Welcome!

Hello, Napoleongrl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

February 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Joss Stone. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were right to remove some of the material that you did from the Joss Stone article which was not properly sourced. You will see that I removed most of it again, and added a strong comment on the talkpage. However, the fact that she was 17 and under California's age of consent is well-sourced to several reliable sources including the BBC and the Sunday Times so can stay. Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lamont Dozier, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lamont Dozier was changed by Napoleongrl (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.933223 on 2011-06-12T05:29:22+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lamont Dozier with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GaneshBhakt (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lamont Dozier with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. 4twenty42o (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

See the edit summary here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that edit summary is from 3 years ago. GB fan (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he did the same thing that I did and assumed it was from five days ago. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message[edit]

To Whom It May Concern,

This information is completely accurate and is displayed on my website: http://www.lamontdozier.com.

I am very upset at the moment as my wife and I were attempting to upgrade my Wikipedia page under the user name "napoleongrl".

All we wanted to do was to post my current biography on the page as opposed to the very inaccurate information that appears there now.

Several people warned that we were editing inappropriately, and then suddenly we were indefinitely blocked.

This is unfair and disrespectful and I would like this reversed at your earliest convenience.

I wanted to change the page to include this information which is not illegal or dishonest:

Lamont Dozier is the #1 songwriter in America. And for every #1 song that Lamont has written, Lamont has also produced it! If you only know the legendary Lamont Dozier as one third of the songwriting team Holland-Dozier-Holland, you only know a portion of his incredible story. The internationally acclaimed, Grammy award winning music master has spent more time before and after those heady years as a recording artist in his own right, as well as a solo and collaborative songwriter and top producer. He has indelibly impacted pop music for five decades. Lamont Dozier is one of BMI’s most honored songwriters with over fifty-four #1 hits for such legendary artists as the Supremes, the Four Tops, Marvin Gaye and many others. As part of the legendary songwriting team Holland-Dozier-Holland, Lamont penned such legendary songs as “Baby I Need Your Loving” (9 million performances), “Baby Love” 4 million performances), “How Sweet It Is (to Be Loved by You)” (7 million), “I Hear a Symphony” (4 million), “It’s the Same Old Song” (4 million), “Reach Out I’ll Be There” (5 million), “This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You)” (5 million), “Where Did Our Love Go” (5 million), “You Can’t Hurry Love” (8 million) and “You Keep Me Hangin’ On” (5 million). The Detroit-born Dozier grew up listening to his father’s record collection of pop/jazz singers, sang in the Baptist gospel choir and absorbed the classical music his aunt played on the family piano. He signed to Berry Gordy’s hometown Motown label, the Sound of Young America, in 1962 as a triple threat, Artist, Producer and Songwriter. It was there he hooked up with Brian Holland and later on, his brother Eddie, setting the standard of ‘60s R&B and soul, fulfilling Lamont’s dream of a music that could cross over to pop radio, where it dominated the era, until the trio’s departure in 1968 to set up their own Invictus and Hot Wax labels. Since 1972, Lamont has pursued his own solo career, starting with a regional hit with the single, “Why Can’t We Be Lovers,” leading to a deal with ABC Dunhill for his solo albums, Out Here on My Own and Black Bach, scoring success with the singles, “Trying to Hold on to My Woman” and “Fish Ain’t Bitin’,” earning him a nod as Best New Artist from Billboard. After stints on Warner Bros. (the hit single, “Going Back to My Roots”) and Columbia, Dozier relocated to Europe, where he hooked up with British producer Pete Waterman of the team of Stock, Aitken & Waterman, working with the likes of Alison Moyet, Simply Red, Boy George and Eric Clapton. He collaborated with Phil Collins on the soundtrack of the Genesis star’s movie Buster in 1988, by writting and producing the #1 hit single "Two Hearts" and also earning them a Grammy, a Brit Award, a Golden Globe, Britain’s distinguished Ivor Novello honor and an Oscar nomination. In 2002 solo album, Lamont Dozier…An American Original, garnered him a Grammy nomination for Best Traditional R&B Vocal Album. The year 2003 brought forth the prestigious BMI Icon Award to Lamont Dozier, while 2004 crowned these accomplishments with the British Special International Ivor Novello Award given to Lamont Dozier. Lamont Dozier’s ‘70s solo albums have been sampled over and over again making his catalogue one of the most sampled music catalogues to date by everyone from rappers Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac Shakur to Lil Wayne, to Dr. Dre to The Alchemist to Common, Lupe Fiasco, Three 6 Mafia to soul icons Mary J. Blige and Nas to Usher and alternative rockers Linkin Park. Lamont is currently serving in his second term as Trustee for NARAS, the organization known for The Grammy Awards. Previously he had served two terms as Governor. Lamont spends much of his time at Grammy Board meetings, speaking on songwriter panels for both Grammy Camp, and Career Day in Schools on behalf of the Grammys, wishing to give back the knowledge that he has learned throughout his many years in the Music Industry. This is extremely fulfilling to Lamont, as he loves to educate young aspiring talent about the do’s and don’t’s in the business he knows so well. He is also the Chairman for the Advocacy Committee at NARAS. As Chair, he walks Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. for artists' rights, lending his name and influence to help the creators of copyright content to continue to be able to own and protect their works. An inductee to both the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Songwriter's Hall of Fame and, in 2009 the recipient of the Songwriter's Hall of Fame's most coveted award, The Johnny Mercer Award for lifetime achievement, Dozier continues to push the envelope. He has plans for his own Broadway Bound Musical Angel Quest, as well as a rare one-time only reunion with his former writing partners Brian and Eddie Holland who together are creating a new score for a musical based upon the film The First Wives Club which conducted its first workshop in July 2009 at The Old Globe Theatre in San Diego, California, and is now preparing to make its Broadway debut in Spring 2011. Lamont Dozier continues to work with the best of the latest generation of artists, including Kanye West, Joss Stone, Eurythmics’ Dave Stewart, members of the Black-Eyes Peas, Solange Knowles and popular Grammy Award winning producer, Mark Ronson. Lamont's most recent hit single is an instrumental titled “Living In High Definition” which is on the newest George Benson album, Songs and Stories. He is currently working in the studio with many new and exciting artists who are getting ready to debut this year. One of Lamont’s proudest accomplishments is having been awarded the 2007 Thornton Legacy Award through the University of Southern California's Thornton School of Music. USC/Thornton also created a Lamont Dozier Scholarship in perpetuity for their students. Lamont is presently serving as an Artist In Residence Professor at USC/Thornton where is he actively involved in the new Popular Music Major which is the first program of its kind in the country. Lamont lives in Tarzana, CA with his wife Barbara. They have three children, sons Beau (songwriter/record producer) and Paris (software developer), and daughter, Desiree who graduated from USC in 2010 and is attending law school.

I really don't understand why these people have created such a mess for us. We have not attempted to edit anything else since 2008. We greatly appreciate hearing back from you and having this block removed as soon as possible, and also to be allowed to contribute to my own page.

Sincerely,

LAMONT DOZIER&BARBARA DOZIER

Wikipedia user: napoleongrl

Hello....UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS UNTRUE WHAT YOU HAVE ACCUSED US OF. WE WERE ONLY TRYING TO UPDATE MY OWN PAGE! NO LEGAL THREATS WERE MADE. Please remove the blocks from editing and also consider what we want to add to the page for historically correct purposes. Thank you, Lamont Dozier & Barbara Dozier (Napoleongrl (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I moved your new message to the bottom so it does not get lost. This account did make a legal threat 3 years ago. There was an edit summary that said, " I OMITTED ALL DEFAMATORY REFERENCES TO BEAU DOZIER, AS THERE IS A LEGAL ACTION COMING FROM THIS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER TO WIKIPEDIA, & TO THOSE WHO PROVIDED MALICIOUS CONTENT." I personnally do not believe you should be blocked for that. To bring your unblock request to the attention of an administrator you should follow the directions in the unblock request above. Copy this {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and put it on the page at the botton and replace Your reason here with a short reason why you feel you should be unblocked. GB fan (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deactivating the adminhelp template. You need to submit this in the form of an unblock request; don't feel the need to post walls of text regarding what you want to change, just compose an unblock request. You'll find the WP:Guide to appealing blocks to be helpful with this. However, I noticed that you mentioned that both you and your wife are editing from this account, which violates the username policy of Wikipedia, and can also result in a block. Please make sure you address that concern as well. Cheers. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 03:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of the Lamont Dozier article[edit]

I believe that the current block for a 3-year-old legal threat was inappropriate, and I hope it is promptly lifted. But if you continue trying to force your version of the Lamont Dozier article, you will be properly blocked from editing for disruption. The article is about Mr. Dozier, but he does not own it. The content of Wikipedia articles is controlled by a consensus of editors; so if you want any changes to stick, you need to convince other editors by discussion at Talk:Lamont Dozier. Edit-warring over content is considered disruptive and is not tolerated. Wikipedia seeks to avoid inaccurate information, and if you identify inaccuracies on the article talk page, they should be corrected. But you should abandon all hope of introducing promotional content into the article no matter how true or authorized it may be. —teb728 t c 04:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleongrl, while you are at it you should also read the guideline on conflict of interest. You have a very obvious conflict here and should not be editing the article. GB fan (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

I have unblocked this account, as it seems unlikely that the old legal threat is still to be taken seriously. However, "THERE IS A LEGAL ACTION COMING FROM THIS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER TO WIKIPEDIA, & TO THOSE WHO PROVIDED MALICIOUS CONTENT." is unambiguously a legal threat. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not permit accounts to be shared by two or more people[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

--Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Napoleongrl. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]