User talk:Legend41

April 2013
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, 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)

Note
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)

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: Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Explicitly retract any legal threats you have made toward Jerome
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Prove that you understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing
 * 4) 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.

Erica Muhl
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)


 * 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.  Tide  rolls  05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)