User talk:Mbase1235

Welcome!

Hello, Mbase1235, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You cannot repeatedly revert a page to make it the way only you see fit, escpecially if such information is not backed up by fact. You are being warned; any further reverts, and you will be banned. --FuriousFreddy 13:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. I thought it was FuriousFreddy that removed my African American reference, but it was this user 82.43.52.176 who is systematically going around putting 'African' in every article and wiping out African American. Sorry for the mistake Freddy, I thought it was you that was doing the alterations. My bad.

Mbase1235 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Stevec3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stevec3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

OK, I replaced with a photo from my own camera. Thanks

Invitation

As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about doing this? Mbase1235 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal disputes

Hi. I saw your message on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding the possibly defamatory content in the article about you. This content has been removed and the article may be temporarily page protected if needed. As this may happen again you should read the Wikipedia policy on legal threats, which apply to all editors even if anonymous. In future you may find it easier for other editors if you refer to a Wikipedia policy explaining why the content should be removed. For example WP:BLPCRIME, and do not make reference to pending or current litigations. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,The article on me is being vandalized repeatedly. As soon as the protection expires, I am vandalized again. I have sent an email about this to info-en-qwikipedia.org but I can also forward that email to you if you want?

Steve Coleman (saxophonist) Mbase1235 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, it is not vandalism to recount allegations. To recount allegations is not to co-sign that the allegations are truthful, it is to observe the bare fact that they have been in a public and legal setting. I hope this helps take the blinders from your eyes a bit. No one is trying to 'go after' you. They are simply recounting noteworthy events. Wikipedia is not a place for editorializing, it is a reference compendium of knowledge. To repeatedly hide the fact these allegations have been made is to vandalize the public sphere -- it is censorship. Alpo91 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then if this is not vandalism, then why not recount both sides of a dispute?

I don't have blinders on. If you read https://colemanvsgrand.info/ you will see that the accusations are simply not true. You are only quoting sources that originate with my accuser.

Hiding behind the idea of "recounting noteworthy events", when Wikipedia has a policy promoting libel and causing harm against living persons.

It's better if you delete pages on me completely, rather than blindly repeat knowingly false information.

There are sources that reveal that Grand is knowingly lying, based on our actual communications, that exist on court dockets (Easter District of New York and Second Circuit websites). Why not post these sources, which are official?

I will continue defend myself from false accusations, even if Wikipedia censors me from doing so.

It is never a good thing to allow only some people to make criminal accusations, without allowing the accused to respond. That is censorship and bias. Mbase1235 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are recounting allegations that are NOT truthful. The recounting is one-sided. Why not quote from primary sources? I sued Maria Grand, and she sued me. The judge dismissed her defamation lawsuit in my favor, because I provided evidence that she was lying. But this is not reported. All that is reported is that my still pending lawsuit against Grand was also initially dismissed. But the appeal is not reported. So this looks like I lost my defamation case when I did not. You are only quoting Grand's lawyers, and not quoting from primary sources (the actual court documents). Also, a MAJOR decision was made by the New York Appeals Court in my favor. This is not reported. It is not "blinders" to report ALL of the news, rather than just cherry-pick sources in Grand's favor. She lost her defamation lawsuit, and you will not allow this to be posted. Quote from the actual decision, not from a biased party's interpretation of the decision: https://colemanvsgrand.info/106-memorandum-and-order-coleman-v-grand-coleman-order-on-msj/ Mbase1235 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.
Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).
-- Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been persuaded by other oversighters that the oversight block was excessive. However your latest comment makes it clear that your sole focus is on pursuing your case against Maria Grand, and you will not accept that Wikipedia is constructed on secondary sources (WP:PST), and that citing your own blog is unacceptable, a WP:NOTHERE block is still appropriate. Any admin is free to consider your appeal. Cabayi (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense. I actually don't want to make ANY Wikipedia posts. And I have no intent to attack anyone. As I have repeatedly stated I am only doing this to defend myself against false information'. It is Grand's supporters who are relentlessly posting false information that is causing me to lose work. You do not appear to have any empathy for the situation here, but imagine that a smear campaign is happening to you, and you are not allowed to respond with official evidence? I am referencing official court documents (you can see this by the court docket number). The only way for the general public to see these documents is if I post them on my website. This is no different than current references to my website that are in the Wikipedia article on me. For example, a reference to my website (that I did not write) is in the reference section of the Wiki page on me https://m-base.com/interviews/my-conversation-with-steve-coleman/ ). Many Wikipedia references are to the subject's websites. This is allowed for everyone else. The official court documents that I want to reference are behind a paywall, where the general public has to first search to find them, and then pay to retrieve them (but I give the docket location). Maria Grand's personal website (www.mariakimgrand.com) is listed on both her French and English Wikipedia pages (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Grand and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/María_Grand), yet you do not block this? Are you telling me that if I post official court documents on my personal website (as opposed to a 'blog'), that this would be OK? If you are going to block me from making references to evidence, AND I cannot reference my own website (as other Wikipedia subjects have done), AND you also will not allow me to remove incorrect information - then how can I defend myself against libelous information? It is unfair to stop me from doing what others are allowed to do. Just because something is on the Internet does not make it true. I told you that the references quoted stating that Grand won are from Grand's lawyers, which is a biased source that is intentionally giving incorrect information. I was not 'convicted' of anything at any point. Grand filed a defamation lawsuit against me which I WON, based on evidence. There was an official ruling from a judge which you are not allowing me to reference. Grand stated that I was lying when I called her accusations false, and I proved that I was telling the truth, using evidence - and so Grand's lawsuit was dismissed in my favor. I should be allowed to reference this legal document, as this decision is being intentionally hidden. How am I supposed to present official evidence that reveals this unless I can reference the official judicial decision (https://colemanvsgrand.info/106-memorandum-and-order-coleman-v-grand-coleman-order-on-msj/)? I support everything that I am writing with official documentation. Otherwise I would also be committing libel. I did not write these court documents. They are posted on the Eastern District of New York Court Docket (website). But they are only available if you have an account and pay to retrieve them (or if you are a judge or lawyer). Also, I did not lose my own defamation lawsuit, as it is now currently still active in appeal, and a major ruling was made on June 13, 2023 that supports my appeal arguments (https://www.clm.com/agreeing-with-carter-ledyard-new-yorks-high-court-holds-that-recently-enacted-anti-slapp-law-may-not-be-applied-retroactively/). There is no reference to this high court ruling (which is in my favor) on either my Wikipedia pages (English and French) or on Grand's Wikipedia pages. Yet you allow references to a link on Grand's lawyer's website, where they intentionally do not reference this ruling. I am attempting to stop the dissemination of knowingly false and intentionally harmful information. A biased reference does not make this information true. Grand, her lawyers, and supporters are intentionally attempting to hide this official information from the public, in order to falsely portray me as a convicted' rapist and sexual abuser, in order to harm my career. Why else would Grand distribute her false accusations to music journalists (New York Times, BBC, Downbeat, Southwest German Radio, etc., then lie about this under oath in court ("In general, I was not keen on the press being involved in this. One of the reasons why I was not keen on the press being involved with this is that I thought it might hurt plaintiff's career… So, that's why I sent my letter privately and not to a news outlet."), and then illegally suppress her 3rd party communications that would reveal this? Are these the actions of someone who is telling the truth? Mbase1235 (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]