User talk:Andy stinson

January 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wall Street's Iconic Power Shirt: The Gekko, 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. Ash (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Andy stinson, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because you have claimed to be the author Andy Stinson (see diff) and you have not verified your name (see WP:REALNAME for instructions on how to do this). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. —Ash (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You put your signature in the middle of a comment that is signed at the end by User:69.237.227.99 . Are you that ip user? Are you also User:SRELY&P? Are you using any accounts other than those three? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My assistant uses the SRELY & P user name. My user name is Andy Stinson. My full name is J. Andy Stinson.

Andy stinson (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've contacted my attorney re: legal action against Wikipedia and its editors for copyright infringement and theft of intellectual material without permission, consent or authorization. Thanks to news implications of the possible legal filing, I also contacted People Magazine's news editor, Rob Howe, along with the business and financial editor at the San Diego Union-Tribue. Tomorrow, my staff will notify programming directors at all TV network news media.

My E-mail message to my attorney, Robert P. Ottilie, follows:

Bob:

Wikipedia is plagiarizing from a book chapter I wrote without my permission, consent or attribution. I've asked their editors to discontinue using both my original research as well as their word-for-word theft of my intellecutal property. They refuse to desist and instead arrogantly continue to re-post my work, word-for-word, as soon as my assistant earses it from Wikipedia.

I'd like to sue for damages. I think the suit is very newsworthy, nationally. Wikipedia and its editors already have a reputation for their very loose handling of factual information. I've CC'd Rob Howe, People Magazine's News Editor, on this message as well as Jim Watters, business and financial editor at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Andy Stinson

Stinson/R. Ely & Partners

Andy stinson (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-enwikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. As I told you on the talk page of that article, you can either work through the courts or on Wikipedia, but you can't do both at the same time, unfortunately. If you've decided to sue Wikipedia instead of helping us identify and remove the material you claim is plaigiarized, that will be more expensive for you, and take longer, but I respect your decision. If you change your mind, feel free to request unblocking here, unconditionally withdrawing all current and future threats of legal action. Something along the lines of, "I am not taking legal action, and have no plans to take legal action in the future" is all that will be needed to unblock you so that you can help us with this problem. If there's plaigiarized material, it must, by Wikipedia's rules, be removed, but we are still waiting for you to help us find a copy of the material you say it's copied from, and to shed some light onto the question of how your associate came to add it to Wikipedia- we're very confused, because the two of you are editing in a way that makes it look like you are one person, and it isn't clear whether this is (a) your partner using your work on Wikipedia without your permission, or (b) you adding material to wikipedia, then trying to withdraw it when it was changed by others. You are welcome to sue Wikipedia, of course, but it would be easier if you could help us by giving us a little more information that we can use to verify exactly what the text is that was plaigiarized- none of us have seen a copy of this text, so it's impossible for us to verify which material is copied from it and remove that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit some confusion, here: if this material wasn't intended for publication, why did the account SRELY&P post it on 10 November 2009? See 12 July 2009 version, 10 Nov version, and changes made between the two. Indeed, we have no intention of stealing your work, but this material was posted in a form which reads, in part, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL," by an account which you now say is operated by your own assistant. If you're telling the truth, now, then it seems to me that your assistant misrepresented your unpublished work as their own, while posting it to Wikipedia, and likewise misrepresented their intention or ability to license that work in accordance with our requirements; that doesn't strike me as something you'd want aired by People Magazine and the San Diego Union-Tribune. Now, for my part, I'm more or less inclined to revert the article back to 12 July state, as a simple gesture of good faith. I'd appreciate it if you clarified copyright considerations with your assistant before any more unfortunate "leakages" transpire. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]