User talk:Kady Miller

Welcome!

Hello, Kady Miller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talking about living persons on articles

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Richie_Ramone. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my edit summary, when removing this information, I was referring to WP:BLP, but I made a typo. Sorry for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems discussed at ANI

Hello, Kady Miller. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread was archived here. (Just saying this so you know a bit more about the mechanism of commenting on wikipedia) If you want to comment on ANI about that thread, then please don't edit the archived version since nobody will reply you there and the edit will probably be reversed to preserve the archive in the same state as when it was archived. For adding comments on ANI you to go to WP:ANI and click on "new section" tab at the top of the page, which will add a new section at the bottom of the page. For the legal problems, please try first to go throught OTRS like suggested below, since commenters on ANI will probably ask if you went first throught OTRS as it is the most adequate channel for legal concers and the most likely to work and prevent repeats of the same problem on the future. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to editing the article

Hello, I wanted you to know about another way that your firm, as representatives of Richie Ramone, may find more effective in obtaining changes in his Wikipedia article. Many of the edits you have been making do not meet our standards for reference sourcing and verifiability, but you have also suggested that there is some content in the present article that is possibly incorrect. I suggest you or your firm make use of our OTRS system, which is a mechanism that permits people who are not regular Wikipedia members to express concerns about specific articles. You can reach them at info-en-o@wikimedia.org or you can click the "Contact Wikipedia" message on the left side of your screen and go through that link. While I cannot guarantee that the changes you want will all be made in exactly the way you want them, your concerns will be taken seriously, and the volunteer(s) responding to them are familiar with our editing policies so will have a greater ability to meet content standards. Right now, you are probably crossing the line of our conflict of interest policy, and that could result in you being prevented from editing at all; I don't think that is your intention. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no need to use the edit summaries to communicate

Kady, it's very good that you are using the edit summaries to explain the changes that you are doing. It helps other editors a lot.

However, if you need to do an explanation that won't fit in one edit summary, then you can just put on the edit summary "see talk page", and then make a new section on the talk page explaining what edit you made and why, and make the explanation as longer as you need, and you can also use external links to webpages. You can go to the talk page of an article by cliking the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some comments

(sorry for very long comment full of corrections) You made some complaints about the actions of other editors, probably including me, but I didn't understand some of the points that you made. Could you explain them a bit to them so I correct any mistakes I have made unintentionally so I don't repeat it on the future? (NOTE: after peering thought links and history, I have managed to solve my doubts, but I'm leaving this sentece so you can see why many parts of my comment are worded this way)

~~For example, I don't understand the comment "You even removed the POPS" [1]. What are the POPS?~~ Ok, I found the POPS removal [2]. It seems that the problem is that the link you provided as source is broken. I re-added it here with a different link, and pruning of adjectives. Next time you complain about a removal, you can provide a "diff" of the removal and post it on the talk page to ask for explanations and get a better response from editors, who will be able to see the removal directly. To obtain a diff, go to the article page, click on the "history" tab, look for the edit that makes the removal, and click on "last". Then you can copy the link of that page that you are brought to and post it on the talk page so other people can click on the link and go directly to the removal.

You complain about allowing information from a phony article [3]. I think that maybe you are referring to what you removed on this edit. I agree that the information about the dollar amounts is unsourced and has to be removed. However, I don't understand why you removed this link to the court documents of the appeal. You see, I re-added the link later without re-adding the unsourced sentence [4] because it was a source just to verify the existance of the appeal (and unrelated to the claims about the dollar amounts and some details like the date (to check later that the chronological listing of the lawsuits is correct) and the parties (to verify that the appeal was done by the party listed on the article and not by a different party). This is a typical usage of reliable primary sources to check that specific facts happened at the time described on the article, and needs of third party sources describing the relationship between the different lawsuits, the circumnstances sourrounding them, the historical significance of the lawsuits or if it has any at all, etc. I was just trying to verify a fact on the article and I assure you that I didn't intend to restore any libel to the article. Can you tell me if you have any problem with the link to the court ruling appearing on the article, or if you have reasons to believe that the court ruling papers listed there are fake (another site even has scanning of the original papers [5]), or if you have some independient reliable third party source explaining why the ruling is wrong or how it was corrected later becasue of it being mistaken for some reason?

NOTE: while I was writing the above paragraph, I downloaded the PDF of the linked paper [6] to read it all and understand the problem with it, and then I noticed that I had made a huge mistake. The linked document is not the document of the appeal, but one document presented by one of the parties alleging that they should be paid the attorney fees and explaining their reasons, and that the arguments presented by a party on a trial are not reliable sources. I totally agree with you that it's totally incorrect to give so much weight to an irrelevant minor point. The position of the reference lead me to believe incorrectly that it was sourcing the appeal sentence, and not the unsourced sentence, since usually the references are placed right after the fact boing sourced. I apologize for not reading better the document on the link before restoring, I'll be more careful the next time to not make the same mistake. Sorry for causing you problems for my mistake. It's posible that other edits of yours were also reverted due to the same mistake made by other editors (someone seeing that you were removing a source and quickly reverting you for "removing sourced information" without noticing the real problem).

About you comment of "Stalker is public record", please look at my comment in Talk:Richie_Ramone#Lawsuit about the level of sources required for inclusion on the article.

Also, I left a warning on User_talk:MediaLawyer to use better sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Ramone website and other notes

I have looked at the website. I note that the biography section is largely identical to certain versions of the Wikipedia article. I believe your organization should read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations to learn about attribution requirements and the manner in which you and your client may reuse our materials. Your page should not say "all rights reserved", for example.

I do urge you to contact our OTRS team at info-en-o@wikimedia.org to more fully describe the nature of your concerns about the article and some of those who appear to have been editing it. In particular, if there are concerns about a specific editor, or if Ramone's wife does not want her name to appear on Wikipedia then this would absolutely be the place to contact. It may be a day or two before you get a response, as the team members are often busy. As a suggestion, in the header of your email it might help to add "Re article on Richie Ramone - referred by User:Risker" to alert the OTRS team that you've been directed there by an administrator to seek assistance.

I think you've been pointed to our conflict of interest expectations (WP:COI) several times, and I do urge you to heed them. After the page protection expires on the article, if you have suggestions on what should be added or removed from the article, post them on the talk page, and remember to sign talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). If you identify a particularly egregious violation of our policy on biographical information, you can report it immediately to the biography noticeboard, which is monitored regularly by administrators and experienced editors who will usually be able to assist.

--Risker (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Ramone website and other notes

I do urge you to heed that you allowed libel of Richie Ramone here, more than once. One could even surmise maliciously so, as you removed accurate positive information. Earlier versions, too, since we're talking about earlier versions. I do urge you to heed that Ramones wives, all private people, aren't mentioned on Wikipedia, as they're not relevant, and HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE STILL MARRIED?

You don't even have the correct city he lives in, much less his marital status. In fact, I urge you to correct where he lives, now that you have a proper source. Correct the information we provided and keep this nut away. Now that we've all seen how serious it is. As to your idea that a long ago version is "identical" to yours, I do urge you to heed that the parts which you say are "identical"--if in fact that's true--to earlier versions, were written by us here. But, feel free to use what we wrote, as it's relevant, concise and correct and your's was a mess. That's what happens when you let screwballs write your "encyclopedia."

As to your "conflict of interest" this is basic stuff. We're not reviewing a concert. Since much of what you have had, down through time with this Bio, is unsourced, or incorrect, I should think you'd welcome some accuracy. Just one example -- Richie Ramone wasn't in the Shirts. Where'd you even get that? So, since you get it wrong, instead of carrying on about conflicts, you should be thanking us for correcting it.

Kady Miller

Just checked the Bio on our website. It isn't correct either, and is not the one that we had submitted. The webmaster has just been instructed to delete it and leave the contact info. I will send you a link when the correct one goes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.109.58 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Richie Ramone, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not bring your conflicts to Wikipedia. Any further personal attacks or accusations will result in you being blocked from editing. Risker (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one IP added text to one of your comments

I made this removal because it had been added by an annonymous user at the end of your comment as if you had written it, see this edit. Feel free to revert my edit if you want that text to stay there for whatever the reason. Normally, editors are not allowed to modify the meaning of other editors' comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced information at the talk page

Please leave a message at User_talk:Risker or at User_talk:Enric_Naval if there is still more unsourced information left after this removal --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks toward another editor on Talk:Richie Ramone. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Kady Miller, accusing another editor of libel - a narrowly defined term - is not acceptable. You have been warned not to make personal comments or accusations about other editors above. During the ensuing 24 hours, I urge you to pull yourself together and review Wikipedia policies about personal attacks. You have been given contact information on multiple occasions to address confidential concerns or libel issues; please use it. If you continue to make accusations about other editors after your block expires, you may be blocked again. Risker (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kady, you might want to look at policies WP:NPA No personal attacks and WP:NLT No legal threats as a starting point. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]