User talk:Coconot

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NekoKatsun (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I responded on your Talk page instead of my own, and now do not see my comment (did you already remove it?), so respond a second time here.

"Defamation" means the matter is not true. What I posted IS true, however. What is NOT true is many of the aspects (if not all) of the article Wikipedia posted about Brittany.

I corrected the reference to Brittany's "surviving family members," who you incorrectly assert are her mother, Debbie Ziegler, and stepfather, Gary Holmes. Not only is a stepfather not a "surviving family member," but Brittany's real father, William Ross Maynard, is alive and well. He is her legal and biological father. So you know, he got no notification whatsoever from his ex-wife of Brittany's marriage, cancer, or putative death. He learned about it from the mass media. Moreover, Brittany has a half brother, as well as a raft of aunts and uncles (many of whom have children and even grandchildren) on both sides. I am one of these--her father's sister, Alison Maynard. Another family member is her mother's brother David Q. Ziegler, who I correctly referenced as a military intelligence analyst, linking to his resume. I am unable to provide a link to ancestry.com to establish the family relationships because I do not have a subscription. But you can check everything I say yourself, and it is incumbent on you to do so.

I also asserted that various models have been misrepresented as Brittany, such as on the cover (and on several pages) of People Magazine. That cover photo is NOT BRITTANY, and I say this with 100% certainty as her aunt. I further included the accurate information that I asked People why it misrepresented this woman as Brittany, and People did not respond. Why would you think this defamatory?

I did say Brittany had filed a lawsuit against her father to extort money from him. You can take the reference to extortion out, although it is also true. This is the only change I authorize you to make to my edits.

At this point, it is Wikipedia which has committed the defamation--of my family. You would do well to incorporate my corrections, or remove the page altogether.

70.171.33.113 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Alison Maynard

Conflict of interest

Hello, Coconot. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Brittany Maynard, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• 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.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Please see in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:BLP and Wikipedia:No legal threats Ochiwar (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  De728631 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Coconot (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see that you've withdrawn your legal threat, so, no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:47, 25 November 2014 (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.

So am I blocked permanently, or temporarily? The messages are inconsistent. Did some rogue cause me to appear to be a "sock puppet"? I can assure you I have never edited any article dealing with Taylor Swift--I scarcely know who she is!

I did source my contentions, contrary to what Acroterion says. I cited to ancestry.com. Do you want to see family pictures? I'll upload some. I also provided a link to the resume of David Q. Ziegler, Brittany's uncle on her mother's side, the guy in military intelligence. In my first version of edits I also provided a link to my own blog, therealcolorado.blogspot.com. I can assure you I am a real person, and these are real facts. Because they are true, no defamation has been committed.

But as the Wikipedia article stands, IT is false. The New York Times and People were similarly false. They apparently took their information solely from Deborah Ziegler, who has reason to cover up her own history. People Magazine has, moreover, used a model who is not Brittany several times in its Oct. 27, 2014, issue, including on the cover. I will be making similar demands for retraction on them, having received no response to my request of the photographer asking why he misrepresented the cover photo as being Brittany.

I am a lawyer, so, while I tend to talk court action--and do not apologize for that--I have given you the opportunity to retract and correct your false statements before going further with that idea. I have not committed defamation, by the way--but Wikipedia has. I think you should remove the entry on Brittany altogether. There is no death certificate for her showing up in ancestry.com. That means your contention that she is DEAD is wholly unsourced.

Let me clarify why your were blocked from editing. As you can read here, making threats of going to court over certain edits and/or Wikipedia is not allowed on Wikipedia and will get you blocked until you retract your threat of taking legal action. Disputes over Wikipedia content should first tried to be resolved online at the relevant article's talk page. If you feel you must sue any Wikipedia editor or the Wikimedia Foundation over what has been written at the Brittany Maynard article, we won't stop you but for that time being you're not allowed to edit here. And please try to also to understand our perspective: anyone can register an account at Wikipedia and claim they're a lawyer who also happens to have evidence that something is totally different than a dozen or so reliable sources have been reported. Would that sound credible? And that other account that turned up at Acreterion's talk page was apparently just a vandal who chose the wrong section to post a rant. That made him look at first like it was you trying to use a second account. But now I don't that has ever been the case.

Anyhow, to sum it up, you can be unblocked and resume editing once you retract your announcement to go to court over the Brittany Maynard article. But please note also that in such cases we need hard proof and not just a statement from an otherwise unknown editor. As a lawyer, you should know that "it's true" is never a good argument unless you can back it up with verifiably evidence. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep asserting that I am simply saying "it's true" and have not backed up what I've said with verifiable evidence? I have fully sourced what I have said. You are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it! I referred you to ancestry.com, where you can find Brittany's family tree. You will see there that her father, William Ross Maynard--my brother, born July 12, 1955--is still alive. If you look into HIS family tree you will see that Alison Maynard is his sister. That's me. Do you expect me to attach a photocopy of my driver's license to my posts here? (I don't see any way to do that, in any event.) What evidence do you need for me to prove who I am, and who Brittany's father is??? The problem is not my failure to provide proof, but your recalcitrance in refusing to check out and accept these authoritative sources. As I've previously said, I can't link to the pertinent pages in ancestry.com. You must have your own subscription to get into the site.

I also provided you a link to David Q. Ziegler's resume online, showing firmly that he's in military intelligence. If you look into the other side of Brittany's family tree on ancestry.com, you will find David Q. Ziegler, her mother's brother.

Finally, I have told you that there is no death certificate for Brittany on ancestry.com. You can verify that yourself. Yet you are taking as gospel the unsourced assertion that Brittany is dead from--The New York Times! How do you think the New York Times knows what happened (or didn't) in a bedroom in Oregon? DEBBIE ZIEGLER TOLD THEM SO. So you are ultimately giving credence to double hearsay based on an unreliable source (far more unreliable than you can guess), over what I say based on VERY reliable sources, as well as personal knowledge.

I need Wikipedia to check out ancestry.com and make the corrections I have asked for.

It is a pity this dialog is not on the article's talk page. I did not know to put it there, but I will copy and paste it. People need to know how little respect for the truth Wikipedia has, accepting something as true just because it appears in the newspaper, while browbeating a primary source, insisting her assertions--ABOUT her OWN FAMILY--are "unsourced," even when she has pointed to evidence in the public record which unequivocally confirms what she is saying.

And, as I find out now, of course I can NOT paste this on the Brittany Maynard talk page, because I am not permitted to edit. So no one will ever know the extent to which Wikipedia has--knowingly--communicated misinformation about this matter.

I have asked you to remove the erroneous and defamatory information about my family. If you do so, I will withdraw my threat of legal action (as has been implied from the first with my use of the word "retraction").

What is needed are third-party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor personal research.

Also, your continued violation of Wikipedia's "No Legal Threats" policy is likely to result in your talk page access being revoked for abuse of talk page privileges. You are of course free to pursue legal action outside of Wikipedia, but you may not edit Wikipedia while the threat stands. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Hi, I'm just a random user who pokes around the discussion boards. Feel free to ignore these comments, but I hope they clarify the situation somewhat. You have to retract your threat of legal action before you can be allowed to edit or discuss this.

Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia places more weight on secondary sources, like newspapers and magazines, than primary sources, like public records. You can take up the misinformation claims with the New York Times and People, but all Wikipedia can do is take from them. We are not here to right great wrongs.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Look: I definitely understand what Wikipedia is requiring of me. Wikipedia does not appear to understand what I am requiring of IT: that it remove untrue content on its site pertaining to members of my family.

I suggest it have one of its attorneys contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconot (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 November 2014‎

You seem confused; this is not a forum for negotiation. Either you unambiguously retract your legal threat, or you do not. Putting conditions on that retraction is itself a violation of the "no legal threats" policy (see WP:NLT).

Again, what is needed are third-party reliable sources (see WP:RS). The sources you have cited thus far do not meet that criteria. Anyone can create a family tree on Ancestry and claim it to be a real one - that is why we rely on sources that meet Wikipedia's threshold of being a third-party reliable source.

If you still disagree, further guidance on how to proceed can be found at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, specifically the paragraph containing the "info-en-q" email address to contact for assistance. If you require further assistance beyond what can be addressed by that contact address, there is additional contact information at wmf:Contact us for contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So Wikipedia assumes articles in People Magazine and the New York Times are "reliable sources," yet denies that ancestry.com is, since "anyone can construct a family tree"? I have offered to send you a copy of my driver's license, and can also provide you a copy of my birth certificate, which establishes that I am who I say I am, so will pin down that corner of our family tree. I can also send you a copy of my license to practice law, diplomas from universities (including Cornell, College of Arts and Sciences), and hundreds of legal briefs from cases I have handled in Colorado and federal courts, all to show you that I am who I maintain I am. I offered to provide you family photos, as well, which obviously include photos of Brittany which People Magazine does not have. I find it laughable, not to mention appalling, that you would accept without question double hearsay originating with Debbie Ziegler, while doubting that I am even who I say I am!

In addition, you are revealing blatant disregard for the truth, and disrespect for the public's right to accurate information, by denying me the ability to post my corrections to your article on Brittany on that page. Don't you think there's a little bit of a problem in that Brittany's father is not even mentioned? Debbie Ziegler is the source of this misinformation. I hesitate to detail Debbie's history on the web, but I assure you it is not one which should engender your trust. I have known her since she was 15. Sorry that the NYT and People did not check her out themselves, but that does not absolve Wikipedia from liability for the republication of her falsehoods.

Wikipedia has shown me on other occasions, as well, that it is nothing but a mouthpiece for the pervasive "intelligence" network which controls information in this country--in other words, TASS for the Soviet States of America. I attempted to correct your misleading entry on the Animas-La Plata water project a few years ago and was repeatedly rebuffed in favor of the puff piece put there by the project proponents, which is false in every particular. Talk about conflicts of interest. Where were your conflicts sensors in that matter? Hmmm.

I again strongly suggest you get one of your attorneys to contact me. I cannot talk about the particulars of defamation law with computer geeks. Your attorneys will understand what needs to be done--and, if they have any sense, will tell you to do it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconot (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 November 2014‎

The contact information for the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation is in the box on the right side of this page, wmf:Contact us. Their email address is legalwikimedia.org -- GB fan 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, GB fan.