Lifeline4

Please assist with posting a photo for this artist profile. Help needed. This photo is authorized by me, Sylvia Brooks- to be used by Lifeline 4- my management company.

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be connecting to the Boulevard of Broken Dreams song by Harry Dubin. Can you please assist with why it is not connecting there? The link appears to have Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Al Dubin song). Does this ( ) need to be added on the main page for it to connect to the correct link? --Lifeline4 17:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh

January 2018

I have undone two of your recent edits on Sylvia Brooks because they introduced multiple citation errors into the article, as well as removing valid maintenance tags and re-introducing sources that are not acceptable as references such as wikipedia itself (see WP:UGC). Please see WP:REFB for how to correctly include references. However, as you have acknowledged that you have a clear conflict of interest in editing this article, and appear to be engaging paid editing, you are asked not to edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page instead. You should also use the Template: Paid on your user page to correctly declare your work as required by wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We are NOT PAID editors. When we have gone in, and are using verified sources- such as IMDB, you keep removing it and saying that it is not a verified source. If you can assist with the proper formatting of this- we would appreciate your help. If you go to IMDB and put Sylvia Brooks name into the search bar, the link that keeps coming up-1. verifies her credits and 2. it is the only link to the site that comes up. It is- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0112268/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Regarding her attendance at ACT- it was not a credited program. She did attend school there. How are we supposed to verify this? Often, these sources are from years ago- many before the use of the internet. Please assist with how to verify sources other then using internet links. --Lifeline4 21:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh

Reply

You have disclosed that you are a management company and Brooks is your client. Therefore you have a clear conflict of interest and are asked not to edit the article directly but rather to request edits on the talk page instead. You should also note that on wikipedia, paid editing is broadly construed and you should read that policy very carefully as I believe it may still apply to you.

It does not apply- and we will not put something up that is fraudulent.--Lifeline4 22:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline 4

In regards to IMDb, as I have said in multiple edit summaries, it is not considered by wikipedia to be a reliable source because it is user-generated content. References should be published, independent and secondary. If no sources are available for certain content, then that content should not be included in the article. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, we are attempting to use a verified source- IMDB - instead of making this so difficult- and because we are new editors- perhaps you could assist. Again, we have tried numerous times to link to IMDB- and the link is not taking. IMDB is a verified third party source- no credits can be added without proof- please assist on helping to fix this issue. Why are you making this so difficult. We are trying to contribute information to the public about Sylvia Brooks. IMDB is a verifible source- as everything posted must be verified with the production company before IMDB posts it. Thank you. --Lifeline4 21:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline4

Clearly, you are attempting to sabotage our efforts- which we believe to be unjust. You claim that you try to do the right thing- yet here, you are not. You are making our efforts to do the right thing untenable. Please try to remove your prejudice, and be objective. Please help to contribute, instead of sabotaging. It says you are from Australia- so perhaps you do not understand how America works. Management companies are not paid for these services. Also, as stated before, IMDB is a sourced site. NOTHING is allowed by IMDB to be posted before it has been verified by the production company- they have a per-approve very strenuous procedure. We will continue to change these sources- and do not trust you to be fair- so to go through the talk pages is not equitable--Lifeline4 22:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline4

You are not listening. Regardless of whether you are paid or not, you have a conflict of interest and wikipedia has clear guidelines about this which you are not following. And again, whatever you personally think about IMDb, Wikipedia also has guidelines on this. These are not my personal opinions, and I have linked you to the relevant pages here to read and find out more. You have also continued to remove the "failed verification" tag on the ACT reference, when the webpage you keep linking to does not mention Sylvia Brooks and therefore does not verify the information in the article. Melcous (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2018 (UT)

Thank you for your help. --Lifeline4 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline 4

Please explain why Jessica Chastain Wikipedia page, lists that she went to Julliard- as well as other credits- and they are not required to be sourced. You are not allowing us equal consideration, as you appear to have clear bias- we will appeal to a higher source within Wikipedia. --Lifeline4 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline 4

First, see WP:OSE - just because there is a problem with one wikipedia article doesn't make it okay to have the same problem in another article. More to the point, the Jessica Chastain article has two references stating she went to Julliard (currently footnotes number 7 and 9) which are both independent, published, secondary sources. Melcous (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

collapsing multi unblock requests and voluminous discussions

January 2018 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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 ~~~~}}.  Orange Mike | Talk 06:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC) 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). Lifeline4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: the page Sylvia Brooks is not being used as a promotional page, merely as an informational page on this artist. There is no promotion of CD's- no concert dates- merely information about the artists life for her followers to know. Where sourcing is not complete, we have repeatedly requested assistance in properly formatting these links- and have only received bias treatment by another editor. Lifeline 4 has been an editor for over 5 years, and has never had these kinds of claims against my work. Sylvia Brooks went to Wikimedia to assert rights to photo use- she has had nothing to do with the editing of this page. Thank you. Also, there appears to be an ongoing snowballing effect here, primarily brought on by Melcous- another editor. There is no reason to block Lifeline 4- . While there may be certain mistakes in citing sources that may have been made, as a result of learning the platform (the more complicated a contribution is to make- the more difficult the proper procedures are to understand.) I Lifeline4, have continuously asked for assistance in helping to properly format these sources- but have only been met with disruptive behavior from Melcous- another editor. You instruct the editor to be bold, and yet, continue to be disruptive and accusatory- when neither of these things are true. I am merely attempting to depart information to the public about this artist- who has a reputation in the industry, is a voting member of NARAS, had an album on the preliminary Grammy ballot this year- and has a following. Please instruct me as to how to go about editing a page for this artist for the public that will follow the Wikipedia guidelines. It is also interesting that in the last correspondence with Melcous- where I clearly stated that I was going to a higher source at Wikipedia- the next thing that happens is that my ability as an editor has now been blocked. Please revisit this decision. There is no need to block my ability to edit- I am mearly trying to build an informational page about Sylvia Brooks in as neutral a way as possible and follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. Thank you.--Lifeline4 07:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Hello Orangemike- you say on your page, if you need help, just ask. As I am a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia- I would greatly appreciate your help in editing this page so that it meets the requirements necessary. I have spent hours trying to comply with proper formatting- creating a neutral point of view- and taking feedback from other editors to heart. Unfortunately, I lost my patience with Melcous- who I believe has not acted in good faith. And I am sorry for that. However, this artist should not be penalized because of incorrect assumptions by editors that do not know her, or myself as an editor and contributor. If you can help- nothing would be more appreciated. I take you at your word- on your profile it says- just ask. That is what I am doing. Thank you. Decline reason: Please post only one unblock request at a time. You have completely failed to address the entirely pertinent issues raised by Melcous, above, and until we can be certain that you will edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies in the future, we will not unblock you. Yunshui 雲水 09:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) 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. Yunshui- your claim is not correct. I have repeated attempted to find new sources- unaware that certain sources were not allowed. Numerous hours have gone into finding sources that would be accepted- reformatting text- and adding sourcing links, only to be removed. The claim that I have filed to adhere to Wikipedia's policies is false. Not understanding how to format something and attempting to do it correctly- is not the same as intent not to follow the guidelines. Please read all correspondence on this. Also, in attempting to verify television sources when receiving a citation needed notice, and when it was made clear that IMDB is not an acceptable source, hours were spent researching the web to find another viable source. TV.com was found, the links were provided on the editing page- and then removed almost immediately. I am really not sure- when you claim that I have completely failed to address issues raised by Melcous- this is , as I said, false. Also, I have removed several lines where sources could not be found. Lifeline4 16:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline 4 You are not blocked because of the sources you used. You have been using Wikipedia to promote your client. This not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Until you undertake to comply with Wikipedia's policies by disclosing your conflict of interest and ceasing to make direct edits to the page, you will not be unblocked. Yunshui 雲水 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Also, repeating what I said at WP:COIN: Allowing your client to use this account was a violation of the WP:NOSHARING provision of Wikipedia's username policy. Every single edit from an account must be attributable to one individual - the same individual - for the account's entire lifetime. Evidence of shared use is a blockable offense. Your account name is the same as a business, which is expressley prohibited per the WP:CORPNAME provision of the username policy. Account can be blocked for this reason as well. Even if you agree to comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing disclosure rules, this account won't be allowed to edit until you complete a change of username request, change the password and convince the reviewing admin that you will never share access to this account ever again. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) The subject's name of the article is Sylvia Brooks. We are not clear on how we are supposed to change the user name. Are you saying that we should call the page Betty Larson- or some other name? This has gotten way out of control, and we will be using the dispute resolution process through Wikipedia. Again, to this entire community, thank you for all of your help and assistance here. --Lifeline4 16:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Lineline4 The process for changing your username is linked in Drm310's comment; click on where it says "change of username". However, you must first deal with the block; you can request a username change as part of your block appeal by using the code {{unblock-un | user=new username | reason=your reason here}} to format your request. Yunshui 雲水 17:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC) @Lineline4: You are confusing "username" with "article name" - the two are separate things. The article name is Sylvia Brooks. There is no issue with that. Your username (account name) is Lifeline4. That is a problem because it is the same as your company's name, and that isn't allowed. You can choose a new username that does not include your company's name, or change it to include a personal name (e.g. "Jerry at Lifeline4") to denote you as an individual at your company. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC) My user name is Lifeline 4- our companies name is Max Net Entertainment- still not understanding. It is ashamed that such a punitive view has been taken of my efforts. I have tried to get things right and comply with all of the talk page notes and recommendations. The fact that something may not be properly done is the result of not being sure how to do it correctly- not purposely trying to mislead. We are not trying to abuse or purposely mislead. We have requested to be unblocked, and been denied. I can not spend countless hours fighting with all of the editors assumptions, so we will appeal this through the proper channels. Thank you for your help.--Lifeline4 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline4 If this is the case and Lifeline4 is not your company's name, then I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. My belief was based upon these two statements: "This photo is authorized by me, Sylvia Brooks- to be used by Lifeline 4- my management company." [1] "Hello- we are not Sylvia Brooks agent, we are her management company. Please spell her name correctly." [2] I hope you can understand why that lead me (and perhaps the blocking admin Orangemike) to believe that Lifeline4 was your company name. You can disregard my previous statements about changing your username/account name. I will defer to the admin's judgement about the other concerns regarding promotion and shared use. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) If "Lifeline" is not a company or organization name, why do posts from this account keep saying "we this"""" and "we that"???? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Because I am a Wikipedia contributor. When I say we, I am referring to the company Max Net Entertainment, which has a number of other employees. Lifeline is my Wikipedia user name. I always refer to business discussions as we. Also, to clarify again, we (Maxnet Entertainment) my company, does not go onto Wikipedia- only I do. We are not paid editors. And I am not a paid editor. As I said repeatedly on this talk page, I have simply tried to write an informed page for Sylvia Brooks following Wikipedia's requirements to the best of my ability. I have repeatedly asked more experienced writers for assistance, and none was given. This entire situation snowballed out of control because I asked Sylvia Brooks to authorize the use of one of her photos on Wikimedia, again, trying to do the right thing, and as a result of that, this panic- which has been extremely punitive- has emerged. It was as if this entire group of editors decided that we were in violation of Wikipedia's policies in some malicious way, which is false. As I also said before, I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for about 5 years. I do not spend hours a day on the site, and still have a lot to learn. I have tried in good faith, to do everything required within Wikipedia's guidelines. There is nothing more to say. I will be going through the proper channels and the appeals process as instructed by Wikipedia. I have very busy business days, and can not continue to go through all of these accusations. Thank you. --Lifeline4 19:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Lifeline 4 Hi Lifeline4. I work on conflict of interest issues in WP. I understand where you are coming from. Sylvia Brooks is your client and you want public information about her to be... as you want it to be. Part of management is trying to shape the public perception of your client. I get that. I get it, that you see Wikipedia as important, because so many people read it. I also get it that you understand that because Wikipedia is "open" and you can create an account, and you can directly edit the article about Brooks, that it is okay for you to do that. The folks here are trying to inform you about how Wikipedia actually works. This very weird thing that is Wikipedia - this online encyclopedia that so many people read -- only works when people who come edit it, do what they should do. People can (and do) just over-write articles with the word "poop". That is obviously not OK, right? Likewise, it is not OK for you to directly edit about Brooks, because you have a conflict of interest. It is not OK. We have a process to manage conflicts of interest. I can teach you that process if you like (it is not hard to follow). but you have to willing to acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest, and be willing to learn that process. You also have to be willing to learn the mission and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (all the stuff here in WP that says what you should be doing) -- all the stuff that your external interest (managing Brooks) is in conflict with. Does that all make sense? If so, please reply here, and we can start to work through this stuff. Once the administrators see that you understand the problem, and that you have a sense of what you should do, they will probably unblock you. Not before. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Jytdog,you have quite the reputation online. I have done some research about you. In going over these notes again- I must take exception with your word "poop". Sylvia Brooks is a very accomplished artist- who is very respected in the jazz world today. She is known all over the world. Her accomplishments are not "poop". Also, apparently, others who admire her work have gone in and cleaned up many of the reference issues- and as I have been blocked as an editor- I am unable to make any further additions to this page- so there is no "conflict of interest". I have no interest in being unblocked, as I no longer wish to contribute editing efforts to Wikipedia on any subject. However, I believe it proper- to revisit the tag that is posted on this article. It clearly is bias by the editors, and not truthful. The article comply's with Wikipedia guidelines,is written in a neutral and unbiased way, and has sources that verify all statements. There is nothing promotional about the article- just statements of fact. By keeping this tag on the page, it undermines the viability of Sylvia Brooks career, and is damaging to her reputation. Lifeline4 18:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 All I did, was give a concrete example of somebody abusing their editing privileges by overwriting articles with the word "poop". That is something an editor can do. I never said anything connecting Sylvia Brooks and "poop" or suggesting that her career is poop. If you become interested in understanding how to be a good citizen in Wikipedia, I remain happy to try to help you. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you. As I stated, I appreciate your offer to help, but have reached a point in all of this where I really do not have any interest in being a Wikipedia editor any longer. I would request, however, if you would like to help, to have the tag on the article removed. As I said before, the article is in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, it is written in a clear and objective way and all claims are properly sourced. The nature of this tag is damaging to Sylvia Brooks reputation and credibility. It is not right to hurt her because of any issues you may have had with me as an editor. Lifeline4 18:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Also, it may interest you to know that I have never earned a penny from Sylvia Brooks. So, I am not a paid editor, and I will not purger myself by claiming otherwise. Lifeline4 18:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 User:Yunshui I believe it is time to remove talk page access for this account; they are no longer appealing and said they have no interest in doing so. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Can you please explain why you wish to remove talk page access? When you say I am no longer appealing, please tell me what you mean. I am trying to honor the request of placing editing requests on the talk page. I am interested in become a good citizen on Wikipedia, just not an editor. What am I doing that is not correct.Lifeline4 20:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Also, I had placed a number of potential edits for review on the talk page with verified sources- and it seems that they have been removed? Can you please explain why? I am following the above directions to please place any potential edit requests on the talk page, which is what was done, attempting to learn how to be a good citizen. Thank you.Lifeline4 20:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Hello, regarding this: If you become interested in understanding how to be a good citizen in Wikipedia, I remain happy to try to help you. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)I am interested in becoming a good citizen in Wikipedia. Thank you for your offer of help. How would you like me to proceed? Lifeline4 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 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). Lifeline4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Please reconsider this block. I am interested in being a "good citizen" on Wikipedia, and it is my claim that unfair accusations are being made against me- and while being asked to declare myself as a paid editor- I am not, and feel it wrong to make a false statement to Wikipedia to have this block lifted. Please tell me what other options are possible to come to a resolution on this decision. The page of Sylvia Brooks is not a promotional page, merely an educational page for those interested in her as an artist. <redacted - not about getting unblocked> Lifeline4 01:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC) lifeline4 Decline reason: You say above, "When I say we, I am referring to the company Max Net Entertainment ... I always refer to business discussions as we." There are plenty of references as "we" on this page, so I think it's fair to conclude that you considered much of this a business discussion on behalf of Max Net Entertainment. I fail to see how you then can claim that you're not paid. Huon (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 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. (redacted Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC))  Non-admin comment Alright, first of all, relax. Secondly, Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and is constantly being improved. The information in Sylvia Brooks will be corrected and edited in due time, there's no need to rush things now, and it is not going to help anyone. Let this fiasco cool down for a month or two, or three, when people have forgotten about this, and then you can try to bring it up again. Getting all worked up is not helping anyone. Also, as a precursor, if your talk page access is revoked, you can appeal via UTRS. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 05:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your response. Please feel free to make edits on this article- should you be inclined to do so. I will take you advice. Lifeline4 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Your talk page access has not been revoked yet. When it is, you will not be able to edit this page while you are logged in. You can do so now. While you are blocked, the only legitimate use of your remaining editing privileges -- namely editing this very page -- is to request an unblock. I have redacted the discussion of content in your post above. I have requested that your talk page access be revoked because you keep using this page to discuss things other than getting unblocked. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Hello Jytdog, Here is instruction from Melcous about the use of this talk page- However, as you have acknowledged that you have a clear conflict of interest in editing this article, and appear to be engaging paid editing, you are asked not to edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page instead. You should also use the Template: Paid on your user page to correctly declare your work as required by wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Your latest determination about the only legitimate use of my remaining editing privileges is to request an unblock- is confusing. I have attempted to follow Melcous recommendation and post incorrect editing statements on this talk page for consideration. While I do agree with you that according to Wikipedia guidelines- as I know Sylvia Brooks- there would be a conflict of interest in my making any further edits to the article- and should this block be removed- I will not make any further edits on this page. This page is not a spam- advertising page- merely an information page for fans and followers to know a little more about this artist. Again I am not a paid editor- as I have stated. It is my belief that our continuing back and forth is of no help to this artist or this article. All I ask is that others are able to contribute facts- and sources to support those facts- about this artist- to this article in a fair and unbias way- and that these disagreements cease from sabotaging the reputation of this artist. If you, or any other editor Googles her, you will see a large international presence in the music community. If you read your edits- she has 3 albums out, not 2- as implied by the article- which is incorrect, and should be fixed. Thank you. Lifeline4 17:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Lifeline what Melcous wrote, was about what you should do before you were blocked. Now that you are blocked, the only legitimate use of your editing privileges is to request an unblock. Admins, this person continues to lobby for changes to the article and to not focus on getting unblocked. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Jytdog- that is untrue. I have asked for an understanding about the current unblock request. Please see below. I have asked if the unblock request is still currently being considered, or has it been deemed not a viable request and what are my next steps according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Lifeline4 18:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Hi, uninvolved / neutral administrator here. I am very confused - one of your first edits read: "This photo is authorized by me, Sylvia Brooks- to be used by Lifeline 4- my management company.", but directly above in your unblock request, you state " The page of Sylvia Brooks is not a promotional page, merely an educational page for those interested in her as an artist.". Are you Sylvia Brooks? Are you her management company? What's the deal with this edit? Further, here you say "We are NOT PAID editors. When we have gone in". Then here, you say "Hello, we are attempting to use a verified source- IMDB - instead of making this so difficult- and because we are new editors- perhaps you could assist. Again, we have tried numerous times to link to IMDB- and the link is not taking. IMDB is a verified third party source- no credits can be added without proof- please assist on helping to fix this issue. Why are you making this so difficult. We are trying to contribute information to the public about Sylvia Brooks.". Then, you say "Clearly, you are attempting to sabotage our efforts" and "You are not allowing us equal consideration". I could go on in this vein. Is this account being shared by multiple people? SQLQuery me! 01:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Note also that imdb is so unreliable as to be specifically called out on WP:RS as an example of an unreliable source. --Yamla (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Hello- Yamla and Neutral administrator. All of your questions above have been answered on this talk page. Once I understood that IMDB Pro was not a viable Wikipedia source- it was removed- and a new source- TV.com- was recommended. I do believe, as Sylvia Brooks manager- that in following the "good citizen" model, there is a conflict of interest in any further actions by me in editing this article. As I have stated, I am not a paid editor, and this article is not a spam- advertising article. Merely, an informational page on this artist. Can you please clarify if the request for unblock is still under consideration? I do not want to open up another request if it is, as I don't want it declined for opening two unblock requests at the same time. I am having difficulty understanding the unblock request status. Thank you. Lifeline4 16:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 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). Lifeline4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Thank you for your decision. This block is in fact no longer necessary for the following reasons. There are several misunderstandings here, which I wish to clarify for reconsideration. I have in fact been an editor of Wikipedia since 2011. I have entered edits on Sylvia Brooks behalf- before I knew her- and had been following her career. It wasn't until much later that I began to work with her. I fully acknowledge that given Wikipedia guidelines- I know the subject- and therefore- have a "conflict of interest" going forward, and will cease from editing this page. Jazz artists make no money- and I have agreed to help Sylvia Brooks without any compensation- so, I am not a paid editor. As stated, I have not earned, nor will I earn, any money from Sylvia Brooks career. In fact, as a jazz artist- she is actually in the red, as is the case with most well know jazz artists. I have helped her as a fan. If you wish to keep me blocked- that is your choice. I have always acted in good faith- not understanding the complexities of Wikipedia guidelines- I am learning, and will no longer enter any edits for this profile- therefore I understand what I am blocked for. Although I have said I no longer have interest in being an editor, that is not the case. I greatly value Wikipedia and the information that it provides to it's users. Thank you. Lifeline4 01:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Decline reason: I am declining this request primarily because I am not sufficiently assured that you have not shared your login information with others and that you will not do so again. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC) 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. Help requested- I am trying to understand what options are available under Wikipedia Guidelines to dispute a number of actions taken against me. While I still have this talk page open, I have been warned that I am unable to post anything but unblock requests to this page- by another editor- and, by even posting this- the editor has told me that my talk page privileges will be revoked. If this is indeed a policy- please let me know. I see nowhere that states that the only thing I am able to post on this talk page is unblock requests. Is this indeed the policy? Please verify. Also, my account has been blocked for Sock Puppetry- requested by the same editor- which is a lie. I have no knowledge of any other editor. Please guide me to where and what I can do to protect my rights- I have been an editor since 2011, and do not want to take the wrong steps. This recent furry of abusive behavior and bullying by this other editor is of great concern to me. In addition- edits were reverted that were properly sourced by this editor. As I am blocked- I am unable to reach out to anyone other then through this talk page. Please help. Please guide me to what my options are- other then requesting to be unblocked- going forward. I wish to dispute the Sock Puppetry charge, dispute the spam/advertising block and dispute incorrect edits. Thank you. Lifeline4 18:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 If you want to attract help you can put {{help me}} above your request and somebody will be along. That said. Please think before you do this. I don't know/remember the backstory here (or how your user page came to be on my Watchlist in the first place) but you seem to have got into trouble for quite a lot of different things. Are you really sure that none of them has any validity? Also, if you use your talkpage to accuse others of bullying without good cause, and then choose to draw attention to yourself, then you may only make things worse. Bullying is a serious allegation, and will certainly be taken seriously, but it is not certain whether that will be to your advantage or the reverse. Also, you seem to have a block review request already open (and it was only opened yesterday) so somebody should be along soon anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) DanielRigal- thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated. You are correct- this entire situation has gotten very ugly- and I do appear to be in trouble for quite a lot of different things. You say, are you really sure that " none " of them are true? To answer this- some explanation is required. As I have said, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2011, and I have never had any issues before now. This entire thing started when I tried to change the profile picture for the Sylvia Brooks article in Wiki Commons. They had said that I did not have the rights to use that photo- so I asked Sylvia Brooks to come over and to go onto the site through my username and give her authorization. I did not realize that that was not allowed- nor did I understand the " conflict of interest " issue. This was a mistake- not an attempt at misleading or misusing Wikipedia. At that point- several editors asked if I- Lifeline4- was Sylvia Brooks. Again, in attempting to do the right thing- I explained that I was her manager- so then the profile was flagged as a paid- spam- article- which it is not. As I have stated numerous times- I do not get paid from Sylvia Brooks. I have been a fan of hers since she started- only beginning to try to help her, and offering to manage her as a favor- within the last several years. Also, since Wikipedia allows paid editors- why would I not just go in and claim myself a paid editor to make my life easier. But, I am unwilling to do that- as I am not a paid editor. I have acknowledged that according to the recent policies I've read- I do have a conflict of interest- because I know the subject being written about. And, I must confess- I am not even sure what the proper way to proceed is on this. And, that to was something that I did not understand- until recently- and have acknowledged it. Apparently- there were several other editors that were involved in editing this page- and because this other editor decided to make my life impossible- I am now being accused of Sock Puppetry. I have NO connection to any other editor. Regarding proper links- if you look at the amount of history that I have had trying to provide what Wikipedia calls verifiable third party links- I have attempted to provide them- spending hours researching- and attempting to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines. As this wonderful thing called Wikipedia is so difficult to understand- and, to be honest- many of the instructions/ help sheets are very difficult to comprehend- I have done my best. But, I have never abused or misled. I am concerned that I have been unfairly targeted- and I am attempting to have an equal voice in this very big misunderstanding. I ask to be treated fairly- and I am really not sure how to defend myself. That is why I've asked for help. Thank you for listening. Lifeline4 23:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)lifeline4 Hello- is my request for unblocking consideration Posted on March 27th, still under consideration? Below the request for unblocking is also a complete statement about the issues occurring here. Thank you. Lifeline4 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)lifeline4

page break

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).

Lifeline4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your decision. Per your last refusal- you say that you are not sufficiently assured that I will not share my account with other editors. I have never shared my log in information with anyone- even Sylvia Brooks when she initially approved the use of an image on Wiki commons- she did not know my log in information. Also, I have never shared my log in information with anyone- and have no intention of doing so. The SockPuppetry charge is incorrect. I do not know these other editors- and you can see from the sockpuppetry charge, they have different usernames than mine. I am the only editor to use my user name and password. I have been editing since 2011- and have never had editing issues before this occurrence. I again request being unblocked. I am entering here an accounting of this recent occurrence, which explains where things went wrong. -this entire situation has gotten very ugly- and I do appear to be in trouble for quite a lot of different things. You say, are you really sure that " none " of them are true? To answer this- some explanation is required. As I have said, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2011, and I have never had any issues before now. This entire thing started when I tried to change the profile picture for the Sylvia Brooks article in Wiki Commons. They had said that I did not have the rights to use that photo- so I asked Sylvia Brooks to come over and to go onto the site through my username and give her authorization. To clarify, she did not log in- I did. She had no knowledge of my user name or password. I did not realize that that was not allowed- nor did I understand the " conflict of interest " issue. This was a mistake- not an attempt at misleading or misusing Wikipedia. At that point- several editors asked if I- Lifeline4- was Sylvia Brooks. Again, in attempting to do the right thing- I explained that I was her manager- so then the profile was flagged as a paid- spam- article- which it is not. As I have stated numerous times- I do not get paid from Sylvia Brooks. I have been a fan of hers since she started- only beginning to try to help her, and offering to manage her as a favor- within the last several years. Also, since Wikipedia allows paid editors- why would I not just go in and claim myself a paid editor to make my life easier. But, I am unwilling to do that- as I am not a paid editor. I have acknowledged that according to the recent policies I've read- I do have a conflict of interest- because I know the subject being written about. And, I must confess- I am not even sure what the proper way to proceed is on this. And, that to was something that I did not understand- until recently- and have acknowledged it. Apparently- there were several other editors that were involved in editing this page- and because this other editor decided to make my life impossible- I am now being accused of Sock Puppetry. I have NO connection to any other editor. Regarding proper links- if you look at the amount of history that I have had trying to provide what Wikipedia calls verifiable third party links- I have attempted to provide them- spending hours researching- and attempting to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines. As this wonderful thing called Wikipedia is so difficult to understand- and, to be honest- many of the instructions/ help sheets are very difficult to comprehend- I have done my best. But, I have never abused or misled. I am concerned that I have been unfairly targeted- and I am attempting to have an equal voice in this very big misunderstanding. I ask to be treated fairly- and I am really not sure how to defend myself. That is why I've asked for help. Lifeline4 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)lifeline4Lifeline4 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wow. Procedural decline as this has been hanging out here. Let's try this. If others are in agreement, I would be willing to unblock under the following conditions. 1) You agree to make no edits about Sylvia Brooks, 2) You agree to make no edits about anyone associated with Max Net Entertainment. 3) You affirm understanding of WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:IS. Please state what they mean in your own words. 4) You describe what edits you would make if unblocked. Please be as specific as possible. 5) You must read and heed WP:PAID. Other admins may amend this to cover anything I've missed. Hope this helps.}--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Dlohcierekim nice solution. A good response to that works for me. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the perimeters for considering this unblock. Per your request, I have stated that I will no longer make edits to the Sylvia Brooks profile- as, I know the subject and therefore now understand that there is potential bias in the editing of this subject. I also have no intention of writing anything about Max Net Entertainment or anyone associated with Max Net Entertainment. I would like to be able to continue editing subjects that interest me. Things that I have knowledge of, like horses- those kinds of things. Regarding #3) You affirm understanding of WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:IS. Please state what they mean in your own words. You must read and heed WP:PAID- my understanding in summarizing #3 is that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool- but an educational one- that all claims must be backed up with credible, independent published sources- and these sources should provide information without bias about the subject. I have read and also understand the clause regarding "paid editing". As I have stated- I am not a paid editor for Sylvia Brooks- however, as I have stated that I will no longer edit this subject, I believe that to be a moot point. I hope that you will reconsider my unblock request, and will go forward in good faith- honoring Wikipedia's guidelines to the best of my ability. Thank you. Lifeline4 23:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)lifeline4