User talk:Justin.merhoff

Welcome!

Hello Justin.merhoff! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting "adopted" by an experienced user How to: edit a page • upload and use images • start an article

Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention

Policies and guidelines

Neutral point of view • No original research
Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

User community

Build consensus • Resolve disputes
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • No legal threats

Community Portal • Village pump
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists

Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review

Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Netsnipe ► 11:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dukes

Just so you know, even if you "edit out" Mr. Sisson's real name on the Chad Dukes (radio personality) page, it will remain in the history section of the page, so it isn't really going anywhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you "represent" Mr. Sisson, you might want to consider contacting the Wikimedia legal office when business offices open in the morning. From my experience, unless Mr. Sisson has a lawyer in Japan somewhere, no lawyer works at 12:55am EST. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Chad Dukes (radio personality). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chad Dukes (radio personality), you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

We have a policy, WP:BLP, which covers living individuals , and a policy on the neutrality of content, WP:NPOV. You appear to be, or be associated with, the subject of Chad Dukes (radio personality) . Wikipedia aspires to be fair in what it says, even if you don't like it we hope you will acknowledge that we are fair, so if you have issues with specifics of the content, and bearing mind your apparent conflict of interest, I recommend you to discuss matters calmly on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Do avoid any appearance of legal threats, or any uncivil discourse and if you need guidance there are people who can perhaps offer advice at info-en-q@wikimedia.org - although the people who have come to this page may also be able to advise. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you should see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on [[Talk: Chad Dukes (radio personality) if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (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. Toddst1 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justin.merhoff (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not threating legal action. I responded to this post, If you "represent" Mr. Sisson, you might want to consider contacting the Wikimedia legal office when business offices open in the morning. From my experience, unless Mr. Sisson has a lawyer in Japan somewhere, no lawyer works at 12:55am EST, made by Neutralhomer. I spoke to him and this is a misunderstanding. The site that is used for chad's real name was a newspaper piece I set up. Once I noticed that his name was there, I asked for it to be edited out. They edited it out on the html version, but not the pdf version. Again, the legal part I said was just that if I need to go that route I will. If it came off as a threat, I do apologize.

Decline reason:

Seconded per FisherQueen below. Wikipedia:No legal threats is quite explicit. Please re-request blocking only if you are making a full retraction. -- Netsnipe ► 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since this appears to be a misunderstanding, I am willing to overlook the possible legal threat (I am the one who reported it and it came on my Facebook page) and am willing to work with the user to work this situation out. I would ask that the user's block be reduced to time served. Thank you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've apologized, but you have also repeated the legal threat- you are still stating that you will take legal action against Wikipedia if you do not get your desired edits in the encyclopedia. You are permitted to do this, of course, but Wikipedia policies say that now that you are taking legal action, you will need to do that through the official channels. If you are not planning to take legal action- even if you don't get your own way- you need to say so very clearly. As long as legal action is on the table, it is has a stifling effect on conversation which makes it impossible to allow you to edit Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This is a big misunderstanding. I never said I was going to use legal action. It was said to me to go through your legal channels. But I will be clear, I am not going to use any legal action at all. I just would like this cleared up and for Chad real name to be edited out as per his and my request and retract anything that came across as legal threats.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Clear statement made that legal resolution is not being pursued. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I told Mr. Merhoff to "consider contacting the Wikimedia legal office when business offices open in the morning". He got the legal idea from me cause I was unsure how to proceed since removing a name from the page will require complete deletion of the page and even then admins could still see the name in question. Mr. Merhoff has said that legal's number went to voice mail and I gave the section option to go via OTRS. I think Mr. Merhoff is sincere when he says he isn't going to proceed with legal proceedings and I was the one who brought it up first. I agree this is a misunderstanding, partially caused by myself. The block should be reduced to time served. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]