User talk:Lane99

Lane99 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Welcome![reply]

Hello, Lane99, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 this 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!--Mishae (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This said I could type this "helpme" on this(?) page, and someone will answer. I noticed the Debra Milke article was, to say the least, not neutral. I have tried to make some edits to it to make it moreso, but I don't know anything about formatting pages here, and I expect I haven't done a proper job of that. (when I figure out how to get the tilde (which is in blue on my keyboard) to type out, I will sign my name properly)lane99

Hi lane99, welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits to Debra Milke definitely improved the article, and I don't see any formatting issues. Also, at the bottom of the edit window on this page, above the edit summary field, there should be a little thing that says Sign your posts on talk pages, followed by four tildes. Click the four tildes, and it should insert a signature. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Howicus. Got it.Lane99 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent statement that the Murder of Anni Dewani must have been arranged by a particular living person who was tried and acquitted on those charges is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Be aware that sanctions are available for violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (even if the mention is in an article that is primarily about a dead person). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert said don't hesitate to contact me, but I'm not sure how. If I just reply here, does Robert see it? Well, I'll take my chances that he does:

1. I didn't exact say it "must have". Nevertheless, I won't quibble with your basic interpretation.

2. I was only answering a question put to me by an editor much more experienced than me. Perhaps he was baiting me, since he knew full :well what my answer would be before he asked. Or perhaps even very experienced editors aren't familiar with this policy.

3. I've now read your comments on "BLP" on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" talk page and see the rule. If I had read it previously, I :still would have been confused. Because, to me, with the reference to "legal status", it reads as if to say something like: you can't :say someone was found guilty in court, if they weren't found guilty in court. Further, I would have assumed that just referred to the ARTICLE, not the "talk page". And I'm kind of surprised that there is this sort of censoring of opinion and free speech. Nevertheless, in the meantime: Your Football, Your Rules.

4. Is there anything further I need to do about this matter. Lane99 (talk) 17:57, 25 August :2015 (UTC)

I don’t know why you ask what you should do next, since you don’t want my advice or any answer that disagrees with your agenda. You have already been advised by Bishonen to stop using free-speech arguments. You don’t have free speech on Wikipedia servers for two reasons. First, you don’t have the right to use Wikipedia servers. You have the privilege, that was granted to you by WMF subject to their Terms of Use, and that includes respect for the policy on biographies of living persons. Second, free speech, even if you did own the press, is restricted by a few limitations including libel. Therefore, my advice is do not ever again remotely imply that a particular person must be guilty of a crime that he was acquitted of, because he is the only person who could have committed a particular crime that might never have happened anyway, the murder-for-hire of Anni Dewani. Just because the court said in S v Mngeni that the crime was a murder-for-hire doesn’t mean that it was one, especially when the case, under better judicial review, fell apart in S v Dewani. Just because the court in S v Dewani didn’t use the magic words to formally annul the implication of murder-for-hire doesn’t mean that there was a murder-for-hire. Common-law courts don’t have to use magic words in making findings based on the lack of evidence. (I don’t know about civil-law courts, but South African criminal trials are under common law.) My real advice would be to take a long break from editing both the article (after 12 September) and this talk page. Other than that, which you don’t want, stop the complaints about censorship and free speech, and respect the BLP policy. I don’t know why you asked. You don’t want the answers, but you have them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon The reason I bothered asking the questions is that, at the time, I was not familiar with your track record. And here you are, a week later, whining about something that I had already conceded. Well, maybe "your football, your rules" was too colloquial an expression for you. It means I will follow the rules of the venue I am in. I presume if you had understood that in the first place we would have been spared the pedantry.

Meanwhile, if anyone is accusing anyone of a crime they were acquitted of, it would seem to be you. Possibly due to your apparent inability to adequately comprehend the legal and logical implications of both S v Mngeni and S v Dewani.

Now, the current Murder of Anni Dewani page is editorialized commentary written by a defacto PR publicist with a vested interest and an axe to grind. This is regretable. At least I find it so. And once it is unlocked my intention is to edit it to reflect neutral, reliably sources facts. Ostensibly that is Wikipedia's mandate. We'll see.Lane99 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lane99 your allegations are scurrilous and without basis. I am neither a publicist nor a PR mechanism. I would point out to Robert McClenon that this has been your standard retort for years - accusing anyone who does not agree with your "murder for hire" story of being a shill/groupie/Dewani family member or a creation of disgraced publicist Max Clifford. I will declare yet again that myself and my partners are normal citizens with no links whatsoever to the case or the families involved, but a desire to see justice done and for the truth to be known. We have no axe to grind nor do we have any agenda other than the truth. On your own admission you are pursuing an agenda to besmirch the name of a man who has been exonerated of all wrongdoing -a clear contravention of Wikipedia guidelines user:RobertMcClenon, I would suggest that unless and until Lane99 agrees to abide by wikipedia policies (to discuss changes on the Talk page first and only edit the article when consensus is reached), that the page should remain locked to editing. In fact, I would suggest that it is unacceptable for an editor to hold a page hostage and essentially threaten to make his agenda driven edits regardless of consensus, policy, or requests to discuss them on the Talk page first. You will notice that whilst Lane99 attempts to make broad allegations that the existing edits to the Article constitute "editorialised commentary", Lane99 has not voiced any opposition to the vast majority of those edits on the Talk page, where I posted the proposed edits section by section and invited comment. They have sat there for about 3 weeks now, with no opposition from any quarter, except for Lane99 who has consistently expressed disdain for the edits but has refused to detail where exactly the issues lie, other than his insistence that the lede paragraph should refer to the crime as a "murder for hire" and the Panorama section for which he still hasn't set out his reasons for why he considers it biased. Does Wikipedia not have a way of dealing with editors who essentially stick their middle finger up at the rules? Dewanifacts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech

Lane 99, I'm glad you have read and understood WP:BLP, per your points above. It does apply to talkpages as well as articles, and the Wikimedia Foundation can potentially be sued for BLP violations anywhere on the site. It's misplaced to talk about Wikipedia's policies as "a gag on free speech".[1] The First Amendment doesn't apply to private websites, and the Wikimedia Foundation is a public charity, not a US government agency. Please see free speech. While I'm here, I'll also ask you to not be so aggressive in edit summaries. You're entitled to remove posts to this page, as you did here and here, but please don't take the removals as an opportunity to attack people. You can't go back and change an edit summary, the way you have gone back and changed posts on Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani, so it's always a good idea to count to ten before saving a het-up edit summary. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Bishonen. Have you asked the other person involved not to be patronizing and condescending? Not only that, but I was made the target of a reckless, gratuitous, and frivolous investigation by that editor. I waited a while to see if someone would step in the straighten things out. But, failing that, it was necessary to make clear I would not allow myself to be bullied. Hence my frank assesment in the summary comments section. However, my point having been made, rest assured, moving forward, anyone treating me with civility and respect should not expect anything but the same in return.Lane99 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume my above response is appropriately added on this page. But I don't know if Bishonen automatically receives notice of it. I went to their "talk page" to try and notify them I have replied, but I couldn't find a way to leave a message.Lane99 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your reply is technically fine, and since you linked my username, I was automatically notified of it per WP:ECHO. I can't say I'm equally enthusiastic about the substance of it, though. Nobody has bullied you as far as I can see. When you say "frank assessment", I suppose you refer to these aggressive edit summaries? Insisting on your right to be rude won't profit you in this place, you know; as I said, it's not a haven of free speech, and the Wikipedia community has determined policies about appropriate interaction here. Here's one of them.

Leaving a message on my page may not be very intuitive, sorry about that. Wikipedia is a bit oldfashioned that way. The simplest way is to click "edit" at the last section on my page (at the bottom, currently "A request"). Ignore the text that comes up, and add a new header below it, enclosed by double equals signs (==Your header==) and followed by your message. It's the same on article talkpages, if you want to create a new section there. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Thank you for confirming about linking user ids. This conversation based on that alone is eliminated from being a waste of my time. We share in common lacking enthusiasm in each other's responses. In the event that I have breached any, I have *not* breached any Wikipedia policies on appropriate interaction that was not in response to a breach first directed at me. And I'm dissatisfied you would ignore the original breach in favour on focusing your attention on my response to it. To the extent that they are not already, I would suggest Wikipedia policies not encourage unevenhanded enforcement of policy.Lane99 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one day for edit warring, as you did at Murder of Anni Dewani. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Callanecc. And appreciate your suggestions. For the record, multiple attempts at consensus have failed. Dispute resolution also failed (when, against the request of the mediator, the editor whose misinformation I'm attempting to correct rewrote virtually the entire article to reflect their particular point of view. A point of view which is, to say the least, singular rather than neutral). I also requested that the article be reverted to the condition it was before the disagreement emerged, and then "page protected" until disputes were resolved. But the single purpose editor(s) involved did not support that, either.

What I'm unaware of is whether or not there is a mechanism within Wikipedia to put opposing entrenched views about content matters to an adjudicating panel (a panel with credentials for impartiality and objectivity). Does this opportunity exist? For I'm more than happy to let someone of established neutrality make a binding ruling on this dispute.Lane99 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are multiple editors on both "sides" so it would be best to let RfCs on the talk page finish and if there is still a problem possibly seem WP:Mediation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think that User:Lane99 is asking how to submit a content dispute to the Wikipedia editorial board. Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board, and works by consensus. As to dispute resolution, the order of steps in resolving content disputes is stated as third opinion (but only if there are only two editors), moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for formal mediation, and last is Requests for Comments. Only RFC is binding, and establishes the judgment of the community. I wouldn't recommend formal mediation in this case; I see no reason why formal mediation is likely to work when informal mediation failed. Also, as previously noted, the murder-for-hire theory is discredited following S v Dewani; it was based on inconsistent statements by convicted murderers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, the Dewani judgement did not rule that the killing was not a murder for hire. You are simply making that up. And I'll confess to finding it odd that, in so doing, you chose to remind us that multiple persons have already been convicted of precisely what you would now like to pretend didn't happen. Namely, the premeditated assassination of Anni Hindocha.

Meanwhile, I didn't realize RFC was binding. That's good. I certainly have no qualms about putting the question at hand to an RFC, providing the decision maker is vetted for impartiality and objectivity. So I will look into the procedure for how to pursue an RFC. Thank you, as well, Callanecc, for the RFC recommendation.Lane99 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lane99, the "decision maker" as I understand it, is the community. That is what "consensus" is all about. btw. The question at hand is already the subject of an RFC. You've participated. A little. [on murder for hire theory being discredited]. People (myself included) have attempted to discuss and ask for your input and feedback on various premises and you have declined to participate. Your participation in the discussion was confined to addressing Cordless Larry once. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from Murder of Anni Dewani and all related ~~articles~~ pages ("articles" was my mistake; change made 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC), Bishonen | talk.

You have been sanctioned for persistently inserting your preferred version of the lead into the article against consensus.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | talk 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Your topic ban

Your topic ban applies to all pages related to the topic of Murder of Anni Dewani including the article talkpage. I should have written "indefinitely topic banned from Murder of Anni Dewani and all related pages" above; I'm sorry I wrote "all related articles" instead, that was a mistake. (I've changed it now.) Please also look up the banning policy, paying special attention to the the section on topic bans and don't edit Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani again or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, Bishonen, what you should have written is that you have banned me for reporting the fact (and you have tacitly admitted it's a fact) that the murder of Anni Dewani was a contract killing and, for business reasons, you find it expedient to whitewash this central fact from the article.

It is reprehensible for Wikipedia to exploit the name of a murder victim such as Anni Dewani to entice traffic to your webpage, only then to censor salient facts about the murder which you happen to find inconvenient.Lane99 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business reasons? Expedient? Lane99, I'm baffled by the way you choose to keep insulting me rather than going to a noticeboard to appeal your ban. Are you performing for some kind of gallery, and/or hoping to provoke me into blocking you? That's not going to happen — not for personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith towards me, that is. I'll block you like that if you violate your topic ban again. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Lane99 and his sockpuppet are now directly contravening the topic ban and editing the Anni Dewani article. Is there some way of enforcing the topic ban? Dewanifacts (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is. I'll consider the socking issue separately. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban by editing Murder of Anni Dewani, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

December 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. 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 are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for socking under an anonymous account and violating your topic ban on Murder of Anni Dewani, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you are also banned indefinitely following an ANI discussion; the closing diff is here. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]