User talk:RenamedUser5
Hello and welcome to my quint little home. Now please go away - I'm busy!
![]() |
Perform some mischief |
![]() |
Lost? Click here! |
![]() | |
![]() | See my pictures |
![]() | Cintron Leave me a message |
![]() |
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RenamedUser5. |
Placing any more unsourced assertions about the pictures either in talk pages or articles will result in you being blocked. She does assert that she was underage when the pictures were taken, and possession or dissemination of uncensored versions would constitute trafficking in child pornography.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Do not remove others' comments from talk pages
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Tericka Dye, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not template the regulars
[1] He was doing so according to WP:NOTAFORUM. As an experienced editor he knows the policies, so please don't template him.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- he gets a template cuz he screwed up. I don't know if he is a regular or not, or even what the definiation of 'regular' is. and why are u worried about it? Brittany Cintron (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, he did not mess up as he was following WP:NOTAFORUM, an exception to the guideline against deleting others' comments. Wikipedians help other Wikipedians. I meet a lot of new people each day. Do not template him because for him it can be considered rude. If you had read the link I sent you, you would've realized that Regulars means Experienced Editors.Jasper Deng 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed them again. If you restore them again, I will block you. Read WP:BLP and my previous warning.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did read the link, but it offered no definiation as to excatly what an experienced editor is. In my opinion, an "experienced" editor would not have removed about a half a dozen peoples' comments on a talk page just because he disagreed with those comments! The issue being discussed - and the accusation being tossed about by Kww - was that the nude Vanessa Hudgens pictures were child porn and shouldn't be discussed on Wikipedia. Myself and others were trying to explain why that is not the case. He just tossed a fit and decided to delete all opposing comments. That, to me, shows that he is NOT an experienced editor. thus, he got the template. I supposed I could have gotten my brother who is an admin to do it, but I wanted to do it myself. If he wants to claim that he is an experienced editor, then he should do so himself. Brittany Cintron (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Brittany, I'm an admin. If you don't understand why accusing your father of possessing child porn or accusing an actress of distributing child pornography for profit is a BLP violation, I'm at a loss on how to explain it to you.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kww is an administrator, which requires a lot of experience. Take a look at our policies WP:BLP and WP:NOTAFORUM. Saying "I could have gotten my brother who is an admin to do it" constitutes a violation of WP:TPNO.
- Actually, Brittany, I'm an admin. If you don't understand why accusing your father of possessing child porn or accusing an actress of distributing child pornography for profit is a BLP violation, I'm at a loss on how to explain it to you.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did read the link, but it offered no definiation as to excatly what an experienced editor is. In my opinion, an "experienced" editor would not have removed about a half a dozen peoples' comments on a talk page just because he disagreed with those comments! The issue being discussed - and the accusation being tossed about by Kww - was that the nude Vanessa Hudgens pictures were child porn and shouldn't be discussed on Wikipedia. Myself and others were trying to explain why that is not the case. He just tossed a fit and decided to delete all opposing comments. That, to me, shows that he is NOT an experienced editor. thus, he got the template. I supposed I could have gotten my brother who is an admin to do it, but I wanted to do it myself. If he wants to claim that he is an experienced editor, then he should do so himself. Brittany Cintron (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Block
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Kww(talk) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am working on my appeal below - why would u delete it?
- Because it repeated the same BLP violating information you were blocked for.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a BLP violation because she was not underaged when those photos were taken. Please, please, I beg you, do some research on this first.
[BLP violation redacted]
- But, Kww, your accusations against me and my father of child porn are way off base here, and I think they are wildly inappropriate. You have slandered and defamed my family with very serious criminal allegations. Brittany Cintron (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- BLP applies regardless of age and your sources are not considered reliable enough. Given the next editor's comment (by Cresix), I don't think you have a big chance of being unblocked while trying to argue that.Jasper Deng 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- But, Kww, your accusations against me and my father of child porn are way off base here, and I think they are wildly inappropriate. You have slandered and defamed my family with very serious criminal allegations. Brittany Cintron (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Note to admin: In addition to the above problems, please note this editor's history of multiple personal attacks. She was warned repeatedly about this, but it continued to occur. Cresix (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Brittany, I'm going to try to explain this to you without violating BLP myself, but it's going to be hard:
- The uncensored versions of the first batch were taken down under legal threat. That threat was based on the claim that pictures were taken while the subject was a minor.
- As best as I can tell, you are simply lying about the uncensored versions of the pictures and a DVD. They don't seem to exist. Sorry that I'm not assuming good faith here, but as best as I can tell, you are telling lies about these things existence, and then lying about your family's involvement in them. That's a BLP violation right there.
- You brought unsourced accusations about another starlet into it.
- Whatever you may believe about copyright law, there is nothing that prohibits copyrighting illegal material.
Getting unblocked is not a matter of defending your previous posts. That's not going to fly with me. It might with someone else: you can try actually following the instructions about an unblock request, and another admin may find that I'm off-base. For me, you agree that you understand why unsourced allegations like this violate WP:BLP and agree not to post them any more, and I unblock you.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Brittany, I think you're getting the idea that Kww did the block based on his point of view; however, that's not true. Kww was doing it according to one of our key policies. To be unblocked, please show you understand the BLP policy.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, Jasper. It is/was my belief that he was doing this just to push his point of view. However,I do apologise for using unsourced or poorly sourced materials. [BLP violation redacted - this will not get you unblocked]
Oh, and i decided to send an email to the copyright office (they have a form online where u can do that) to see whether or not one can copy right illegal material. I am just curious about that topic and will let u know what they say (in 5 or so business days, they claim).
But, anyways, to get back to the matter, I do apologise. Brittany Cintron (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- A simple apology is inadequate. To be unblocked by an administrator, you'll need to follow the instructions in the block message and show that you completely understand BLP. The pictures are controversial-exactly the type of information that BLP does not allow.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that she needs to show an understanding of BLP, but the issue here is not discussion of the images: they exist, and the existence of those images is well sourced. It's speculation about people's role in disseminating them and unsourced statements about trafficking in uncensored versions that go against WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right on the mark, Kww.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- But there are several sources speculating that this is just for publicity as this is done each time for her new movies! I thought the discussion was about you accusing me of child porn and my attempts to show you why that statement was false. That is when you started to delete my posts and issue this block. As an aside, and I got this idea from my dad, if the pic were child porn, then Vanessa would be guilty of being a chil pornographer because "it is no defense to prosecution that the pictures were self-made child porn." Also, the other girl in the nude pictures, who is nude and kissing on Vanessa, is 18. If these were the 'original' set from when Vanessa was underaged (which would have been 2006), then she would have been 14 or 15 then.
- You're right on the mark, Kww.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that she needs to show an understanding of BLP, but the issue here is not discussion of the images: they exist, and the existence of those images is well sourced. It's speculation about people's role in disseminating them and unsourced statements about trafficking in uncensored versions that go against WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- But it was/is my belief that it was only once you started throwing around the child porn accusation, and I made my defense, that this block was made and you started to delete my posts. Brittany Cintron (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)