User talk:Leejacoby1972

October 2018

Hello, I'm Alex Cohn. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Gogo Inflight Internet because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 19:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. The page edit is to reflect the real inventor of GoGo and not Jimmy Ray. We have issued Legal Take downs of several pieces off of google and next is the actual GoGo website for violation of Intellectual Property rights. Im not sure what more you need but the wiki page needs to be reflected with Correct info and stopped being changed. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a reliable source. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 19:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-- I did you removed it! The link went to the Actual Inventor herself. Nicole R Seibert. I am her Public Relations manager for this all and she has just broken her NDA to come forward about this. But none the less this still violates Copyright and Intellectual Property rights law. She was made to sign an NDA when the original company in hired in 2007 dating all the way back to 1991 when she invented AirCell which is now GoGo. AirCell has her original cocktail napkin but she does have her NDA. She has filed for a legal motion to retrieve her napkin and is already doing interviews over such things. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leejacoby1972: Please provide reliable sources for your assertions - as it stands, all we have to go on is your own assertions. Also, what is the copyright issue on the Gogo Inflight Internet page? Incorrect information is generally not a copyright infringement. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC) <<<<<<<< I gave the Link to the actual Inventor. The copyright and Intellectual property law does come into effect here. Because if never granted the companies stole her information and would have never existed. She had the drawing and the Naming rights therefore falls under HER copyright Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex..... I can put you directly in touch with her if that is whats needed. Either by email or by phone your choice. But this is all a blatant violation of her rights. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to her would not help here - we need coverage from reliable independent sources. Has Nicole Seibert's case received any press coverage? Also, in general, Wikipedia does not allow links to external pages inside the body of articles - these are better suited for references. Additionally, please review the Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest - since you're employed by an involved party, you have a conflict of interest. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has already done one interview over this and has many more scheduled. And NO I am not Employed by her at all. I took it upon myself and my own free will after almost 6 months of doing research and chose to do this for free with NO contracts signed! This so far is the largest Intellectual Property right theft in US history and I consider it Fraud now due to what I have found that was listed with the SEC. No third party here my friend at all sorry. She has been railroaded for far to long and after I found out she met with the FBI at AirCell when they hired her twice and once at her home to discuss AirCell that's all it took for me. Nicole and myself have now reached out to the FBI's office in Warrenville, Illinois to try and make contact with all 5 agents that met with her. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you're employed by her or if a contract exists; you're acting on her behalf. Please review WP:COI and follow the conflict of interest editing guidelines. When the interviews are published, I would strongly recommend using the {{request edit}} process for this. You don't need to present evidence to me; I'm merely a recent change reviewer who saw what I thought was a possibly-controversial edit. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 20:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please instruct the legal way to have this entire page removed then which she has the right to do via DMCA Takedown notice. Is there a process here on wiki or should I instruct her to do it the other way then? Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you or your client wrote the Wikipedia article, a DMCA takedown will not accomplish anything except waste a whole lot of volunteers' time. Nevertheless, if you'd like to go this route, see Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 21:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alex for the help I will have her start the proceedings for take down asap.Leejacoby1972 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, Leejacoby1972. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per claim of being the subject's public relations manager, and adding contentious, unsourced content multiple times with several accounts. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again no COI at all. It's no different than that of the original article writer here if it was not the President of the company. So since your unwilling to change it can you please direct me to the Legal source here on wiki so that she can issue a Legal Request to have it removed. It is her Intellectual property and legally is not able to be here without her permission. It is wrong information 100% and therefore Illegal. She can also do a DMCA Takedown of the page entirely which then would cover it but Im trying to steer her away from that. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Im not trying to be contentious at all. I just want what is right for the lady in question is all. So please instruct on how to do a legal removal from wiki's stand point please. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leejacoby1972. Firstly, you are editing with a COI. You have a paid COI, as well, as you are being paid by the subject of the article in your actions editing the article. This is highly discouraged and, in some cases, against the Wikimedia terms of service (if you don’t disclose your paid COI). Furthermore, the article is under no obligation to being taken down by DMCA. An article created by volunteer editors about a person is not their intellectual property. If you have further legal issues you can email legal@wikimedia.org. The only people looking at this page (afaik) are volunteer editors acting on behalf of themselves, and not the Wikimedia foundation. Vermont (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont. Actually NO you did not read properly. I am NOT being paid in any way shape or form. Again I took this on under my own free will and doing it on my own behalf because it is the proper thing to do here for this large of a violation. SO please read before speaking on such. I do not know the lady other than to hear her story online and did investigative myself and decided to take this on. Now about the article in question. Now the article might not concerning you, But under copyright law the entire wiki site can be brought down with the hosting service due to Infringement rights and I've already spoken with an attorney over this just 20 short minutes ago. The fact that now several people have seen this and are now aware of said copyright violation and intellectual property rights claim and refusing to do anything about it makes the matters worse for wiki. And the article is not about a person the article is about AirCell and GoGo which never would have developed with Mrs. Seibert at all. So again, I have instructed Mrs. Seibert just a bit ago on the proper link that Alex gave me and I will be making a formal copyright claim and DMCA notice to the ISP who hosts the site under copyright claim. Now by law they must remove the site until it is fixed or rectified by wiki thats not my issue thats wiki's issue. I follow the law and so does Mrs. Seibert and that is why this is being done. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leejacoby1972, i'm sorry it seems I misunderstood what you meant by "I am her Public Relations manager for this..." It's very kind of you to be a public relations manager for free. Just curious; what exactly is the copyright violation and violation of intellectual property rights? All it looks like to me is someone who claims to have played a vital role in creating two technology systems and is not represented accordingly in the articles. If you have reliable sources that say she held those roles and contributed as claimed, the information can be added to the articles in question. But considering it a violation of copyright and intellectual property laws is erroneous. Any lawyer who told you otherwise isn't correct. Vermont (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that any legal issues should be directed to legal@wikimedia.org, and not this talk page. Vermont (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take down notices

are out of the normal editing process by the Wikipedia Community. Your best bet is to contact the Foundation that owns the project. The main contact page is Wikimedia Contact. Most pertinantly

Please send all other legal questions or requests to:

Wikimedia Foundation
 c/o CT Corporation System
 818 West Seventh Street
 Los Angeles, California 90017
{{nospam|legal|wikimedia.org}}

Hope this helps.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does help very much and thank you for taking your time when others would not after I asked. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I asked very nicely about the changes, I informed of copyright and intellectual property violations. And the childish behavior of blocking just because I instructed Mrs. Seibert on what to do is beyond funny. She has every legal right to take legal action here after I brought this to attention. You failed to do anything and frankly that's not my problem. Under Intellectual Property rights she doesnt even need to provide proof at all. And to make issues even bigger you should have researched that fact before talking about a subject that you obviously knew nothing about. Now she and myself will work to have this removed one way or another. I thank you all for the help and wish you all the best of luck for not cooperating with the violation. Leejacoby1972 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rights of Seibert are not at issue. Once you decide to pursue a Wikipedia related matter in the courts instead of on Wikipedia, you must be blocked until the legal matter is resolved. See WP:NLT. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you have have to do to remove the block is commit to not taking any legal action. Which would be your suggested path forward, because you aren't going to get the edits you want by any means, legal or otherwise. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]