User talk:REECED1

Unblock - Reason

Please accept my apologies. I realize the reasons for which behavior was found to be unacceptable and had to be blocked, and understand why the content I provided was disruptive. I can ensure I will never adopt any of kind behavior alike in the future, and to always conduct myself appropriately, should I be given the opportunity to edit Wikipedia again. I believe to show having the capacity and the intentions to improve its content and enrich it with knowledge.

October 2022
Hello, I'm Sjö. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Joint account have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sjö (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Investment, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. —Bruce1eetalk 09:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joint account. Sjö (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC).


 * To call the correction of a erroneous definition an act of vandalism would be justified, if the change turned the content from being resourceful to misguiding. Not the other way round. The purpose of incorporating an organization is to create a separate entity, called a business. Entities do not open joint accounts with other entities, unless both entities merged into one. Shareholders own shares of the same business, but do not own the same shares of a business, as they would with a joint-account. Club committees are fund raisers and receive donations from their members.REECED1 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, joint accounts can be opened by other entities including clubs and associations. That together with the poor grammar in your post and that you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand the subject is the reason that I gave that final warning.  Sjö (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of poor grammar, it's not Joint account, but joint-account. Precisely, it is an adjective-noun compound that functions as an adjective, not as a noun."Most joint-account owners should know."REECED1 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whom would the account own by an entity be joint with? REECED1 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That together with the poor grammar in your post..., did you mean: "That and the poor grammar of your post, together...? The conjunction with is usually paired with the adverb along. The cunjunction of, not in, is used with possessive clauses.
 * REECED1 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Sjö, I'm afraid you are the one who's wrong. The following paragraph is an extract from the FDIC website: ''A joint account is a deposit owned by two or more people. FDIC insurance covers joint accounts owned in any manner conforming to applicable state law, such as joint tenants with right of survivorship, tenants by the entirety and tenants in common. To qualify for insurance coverage under this ownership category, all of the following requirements must be met:
 * ''1. All co-owners must be living people. Legal entities such as corporations, trusts, estates or partnerships are not eligible for joint account coverage.
 * ''2. All co-owners must have equal rights to withdraw deposits from the account. For example, if one co-owner can withdraw deposits on his or her signature alone but the other co-owner can withdraw deposits only with the signature of both co-owners, the co-owners would not have equal withdrawal rights. REECED1 (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you do not understand the subject. Competence is required is only an essay, i.e. not a part of the formal rules of Wikipedia, but it explains why there is a risk of disruptive editing from people with good intentions, such as yourself.
 * Your text above is an example of where you misinterpret the source. The key phrase there is "To qualify for insurance coverage...", which means that the text is about the rules for insurance. In fact, I would argue that if legal entities could not have joint accounts, the entire second sentence of p. 1 would be superfluous.
 * Also, this is Wikipedia in English, not the US Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives for a global perspective, so articles should reflect that e.g. laws differ between countries. Even if legal entities could not own joint accounts in the US, the article should not present that fact as a universal truth. Sjö (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two businesses with a joint-account have merged into one. Additionally, not all entities are businesses. A trustee, for example, is an entity clearly prohibited to commingle its funds held in Trust, with anyone else, including him or herself. The job of the trust is to make sure the property is kept in his or her name as Trustee, exclusively, until distributed to the beneficiary. In the case of a corporation, the entity is the business firm . In case of a Trust, the entity is the individual Trustee. REECED1 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are entities people? REECED1 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  A joint account is a deposit owned by two or more people.  REECED1 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All co-owners must be  living people.  REECED1 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you read the American bank website I linked above that explicitly says that "other entities" can open joint accounts? Sjö (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are new and do not know the rules, so I want to point you to WP:REDACT, since you made substantial changes to the paragraph beginning with "To call the...". I suggest that you revert your changes to that paragraph to restore the text that I answered. Sjö (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I am sorry about that, and thank you for pointing me to the right direction. REECED1 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Landlord, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. WIKIPEDIA REECED1 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the definition of a peasant remains very ambiguous with the estranged conception of a "limited land-ownership" being associated with the miserable existence of peasants, and the use of the adverb 'especially'. REECED1 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

West Hollywood, California
Please see wp:SYNTHESIS. The source states n 1984, a coalition of gay men, Russian Jews and the elderly, spurred by the imminent expiration of L.A. County’s rent control protections, successfully held a vote to officially incorporate the area as the City of West Hollywood, electing a city council with an openly gay majority and immediately passing a series of rent control measures to protect its longtime citizens.. Other changes you made also do not reflect the sources. Adakiko (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Upon the imminent expiration of L.A. County’s rent control protections, the residents held a vote which officially incorporated the area into the City of West Hollywood, represented by a city council which immediately restored rent control protections in the city, in democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:AF00:E2:3505:DDE4:BF2F:6559 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just reverted apparent vandalism to Trust law
Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. Do that again and you will be permanently blocked.

First, you deleted the entire article and marked that as a minor edit. Not a good look.

Second, the article is truly awful, but if you truly believe the only way to fix it is to delete and start from scratch, you need to propose that on the Talk page and wait a week (or two) to make sure no one objects, then warn in your edit summaries that you have already proposed this and no one objected. I always do that before making extremely drastic edits to long-established articles and rarely encounter problems.

Third, you replaced the entire article with a sentence that was factually incorrect: you claimed a trust is a legal entity. The first thing hammered into every law student in Wills & Trusts courses is that a trust is not a legal entity. It's a legally enforceable relationship. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Did an enforceable relationship have a legal right to obtain an EIN number prio to own title of real estate property, independently, and pay property taxes, and all related expenses, as an entity would have? REECED1 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A trust is not a legal entity but an enforceable relationship. This statement contains the adjective enforceable that qualifies the noun relationship, in a dependent clause introduced by the conjunction "but". This means that enforceable relationship is an attribute to the subject "trust", following the auxiliary verb to be. Legal and enforceable are synonymous. REECED1 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're asking for free legal advice. There are numerous Web pages which already answer that question and explain the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury regulations. The answer is really simple.  (Well, for me it's simple because I took Federal Income Tax in law school with one of the world's foremost experts just because I wanted to be no longer scared of doing my own taxes.) If you don't understand those Web pages, you need to hire an attorney. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The nouns association, affiliation, union, fellowship and relationship are all synonymous. REECED1 (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, an enforceable relationship is a legally-binding association. REECED1 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, your statement " The first thing hammered into every law student in Wills & Trusts courses is that a trust is not a legal entity.  It's a legally enforceable relationship." is ABSURD, since the meanings of legal entity and enforceable relationship are  synonymous , as previously presented.  REECED1 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Other synonymous adjectives of enforceable include valid, legally-binding, obligatory, mandatory, and executable. REECED1 (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are gifts enforceable? REECED1 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is also apparent vandalism. Please desist. If you want to boldly rewrite it all, you can, but actually do that without blanking it, and use an edit summary to make clear what you're doing, because a negative diff of 5 figures which stubs an article, without an edit summary, is going to get reverted as vandalism. The advice, above, to suggest such changes on the talk first is also good advice, because they can still be reverted if others think they're not an improvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

West Hollywood, again
The land that is now West Hollywood existed before incorporation and was located west of Hollywood in the main. I choose not to waste time explaining this any further.

The following are points of historical record, documented on the West Hollywood tourism web site and in print:
 * West Hollywood around the time of incorporation had significant gay and Jewish populations.
 * Gay, Jewish and elderly residents were instrumental in the success of the incorporation campaign.
 * A majority of the first city council were gay.

It is not "discrimination" to state any of these. Calling it discrimination is absurd to the point of mental disorder. This is just another example of why your edits continue to be reverted again and again, by multiple users who are not necessarily coordinating their actions.

Stop adding claims to articles based on your opinion of what is true, however strongly held; you must be able to cite a published source that makes the specific claim you are adding. Stop unilaterally removing or contradicting text for which a source is cited. If you dispute the text, state your dispute on the article's talk page and cite a source supporting the objection. You are running out of warnings.

For further explanation of this aspect of Wikipedia content policy, see Verifiability, not truth. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)