User talk:Legal pratice

March 2021

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mike Bullard (comedian) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have removed referenced material. Please discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. Ifnord (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is remove as the legal proceeding were dropped and by request of the if person in question to have the information redacted. Should your require for formal legal letter requesting this to be removed this can be provided. Please note that can be consider to escalated if need be.

So if your require vaildated source for redacting I can get a written statement for redaction of section of the lawyer if required.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Bullard (comedian), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Mike Bullard (comedian). M.Bitton (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a legally valid reason for remove the statement listed should you re-post or block this account I will take this to have to escalate this too via the Wikipedia dispute resolution. M.Bitton should be aware that reporting on sources that a current under litigation does not deem as valid sources. Therefore the source 14 provided is not a valid source and slanderous to the person. As stated all charges have been dropped stated therefore please remove the legal section from Wikipedia. Should you retain information on Wikipedia an arbitration will be requested for the removal of the entire article.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Legal pratice. 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 conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al mention this is by request of Mike Bullard as legal proceeding dropped and in the best interest of the personal privacy request the changes remain permanent.

Considering your history of contributions here...

...I need to ask you this direct question:

Are you paid for your editing on Wikipedia by the companies you write about, or any companies associated with them?

If so, you need to be aware of this:

The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use (which is our Terms of Use, since we've never adopted another one), says:

Paid contributions without disclosure
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

If you are a paid editor, you must comply with these terms, as well as with our English Wikipedia-specific policy on editing with a conflict of interest. This is not a matter for debate, it's part of the contract you agree to by editing here.

So, again, a direct answer please: do you get paid for editing here? Ifnord (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am receiving not form a payment for editing and do not fall in line with the Conflict of interest as stated above.

I do not have a direct relation to Mike Bullard

I do not get paid for editing any documents.

I am not registered as Mike Bullard legal representative.

Therefore none of the stated issues apply.

Please note that there is pending action against Toronto Star for the mention articles.

Considering all mention of legal actions stated in the article have been dropped.

Removal of the legal section does not affect the article as a whole and I have not said anything that was not true.

Therefore I requesting you remove the legal section of the article from this site.

I do not understand what is your authority for replace statement? I have given valid reason for removal you please state your reason for why this information should remain.

Please explain your statement, "Al mention this is by request of Mike Bullard," above. Ifnord (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]