User talk:Bomarc

February 2013

Hello, I'm Doc9871. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User talk:JohnCD without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Doc talk 14:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:JohnCD, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three hours for WP:disruptive editing, repeatedly over-writing my talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

JohnCD has been abusing his Administrator powers for some time now. I have learned that he had deleted my page (talk) w/o notice, warning or reason (NONE of the guidelines out lined for deletion were followed). When I follow up, my account was threatened by a 3rd party, then suspended w/o notice for editing in a “talk” section; which has full restore capabilities. The article that I created cannot be as easily restored. His (JohnCd) abuse of his authority must be stopped. Bomarc (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the reasons for your block: you appear to be harassing JohnCD, and there is no evidence of any deleted talkpages created by this account. See JohnCD's remarks below. Unblock requests that contain attacks on other editors are unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing, particularly when the complaint appears to be entirely baseless, as is the case here. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reply to your messages on my talk page: I blocked you after you blanked my talk page four times, so that I have time to answer your complaint. You don't say which deleted talk page you mean, and it was not created from this account, so I can't comment on it, but material written on orphaned talk pages by unregistered IPs is routinely deleted, unless it gives some indication that it might meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article. As most IPs are dynamically assigned, there is often little point leaving messages - we hope the IP user will get the message that the thing to do is register an account, or log in if they already have one, so that they can create articles directly and receive messages. New users who would like to be guided through the process can use the WP:Article wizard, and IPs who don't wish to register can use WP:Articles for creation.

If you want to create the article again, go ahead, but log in first, and read WP:Your first article for advice before you start. I will leave your unblock request for another admin to consider. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. No mention of the abuse by JohnCD.

2. Why should I say what page you deleted, so you can delete it _again_

3. Of course there is no history of it, it was _deleted_.

4. It appears to be asking too much to go to the back logs to look into Administrator abuse.

5. Why is it that you can threaten and abuse, but I – WHILE LOGGED IN try to get YOUR attention, and you (only now) “act” cordial. All of the work that I had done, including the search link is (are) gone. Two mouse clicks and your information is back. What I did was NOT “blanked page” but a message to get your attention.

6. No mention that it was the "TALK" page, not the lead article (of your page).

As stated, I will continue to escalate this issue, your abuse as an administrator must stop.

Look, can you explain the whole story so someone who has no familiarity with it can understand you? As far as your edit history shows, you had a couple of edits in 2006, 2008, and 2009. It doesn't show any deleted edits. Ryan Vesey 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can see deleted edits: this account doesn't have any. You'll therefore have to tell us what the subject was, or the account that made it. Blanking other users' talkpages to "get their attention" is inappropriate and if repeatedly done, will result in a block for disruptive editing, which is what happened here. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the user does not realise that edits like this do not just leave a message on my talk page but over-write all the other messages there; but two warnings might have given pause for thought. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain that this user is having some trouble: the main problem from an outside point of view is that they're unwilling to explain just what the issue is and that they're assuming bad faith. This [1] comment from 2009 was simply archived from the talkpage (though as a forum post it could equally have been removed as unrelated to article development). If the contentious edit was posted as an IP, we're not clairvoyants. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been address in bad faith by JohnCD. In summary: JohnCD removed the results to a search to get to the web page, and deleted a web page. His actions were done without cause or reason (based on standards at Wikipedia). I attempted to "talk" with JohnCD, and was interfered with by two other people. JohnCD claims that he “warned” me are false. My issues were raised on HIS (talk) page, as such shouldn’t he be the one to perform the talking? He (JohnCD) NEVER warned me, and comments to that are false, unless he is using a straw account.

(Your attempts to talk with me blotted out all the other messages on my talk page. You were warned about that by two other users - look at the top of this talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

The page at issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morella_Addams

This page had (previously) a search result, and was not an orphan. I had added a “Talk” section, to get more input from other people. Since my update (approximately 12 hrs previous), both the search (- for Morella Addams) and the “talk” page have been deleted by JohnCD. Of course the information is no longer there, the page and info have been removed. Since I’ve re-added the page. The (wiki) information about JohnCD removing the page is now also gone. (That is my mistake: keeping a log that JohnCD is abusing his authority.)

I do know that the type of edit that I’ve done is non-destructive (NOT permanent). Two mouse clicks, and all of the previous information is back. The vandalism done by JohnCD is permanent. The original page with its history cannot be restored, the search cannot be re-entered (connected), the history of the work that I had previously done is gone.

1. I need help to re-integrate the web page that has been vandalized by JohnCD

2. I need help to remove “JohnCD” as an admin, he is abusive with his authority, and will miss-represent his bad actions to his own gain.

Creating a talk page, without a corresponding article page, makes the talk page a candidate for speedy deletion. And frankly she's not notable. Our notability guidelines for pornographic actors and models can be seen at WP:PORNBIO. Looking at the page MyFreeCams.com, it is apparent that the only notable ones are those who are also pornographic actresses. Ryan Vesey 18:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your contested deletion, because she does not appear to be notable, I suggest that you do not continue to attempt to write an article about her. It's a waste of your time. That said, for future reference, the proper way to develop an article is either in your userspace, by creating an article at User:Bomarc/ARTICLE TITLE or by using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Ryan Vesey 18:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First... The process is backwards. I would want to "talk" about an article before I crate the article.

Second... Help me create an article. What can I do to make it right?

Third... She is not a 'pornographic' model.

Fifth... When someone of note is there, we should note them.. Morella Addams is a person of note. You may not have seen her, whish is fine, but she is still 'worthy' of note.

MFC is only one of several areas of her notoriety, which is why I started a “talk” article. Let us talk about the subject, and then create an article about the topic. But I guess that would make too much sense. So, who determines if she is “notable” enough?

To answer some of your questions:

To start with, read WP:Your first article
The first thing the article Morella Addams needs is references to reliable sources to confirm what it says. Wikipedia has a verifiability policy that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." For anything about a living person, that is so important that such articles will automatically be deleted after ten days if they are not referenced.
Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of saying so, but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people independent of the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? Read WP:ANS for what it means, and WP:Notability (people)] for more detail.
An encyclopedia article is not a blog or gossip column and should stick to verifiable facts, not opinions like "warm, soft spoken" or "hard (heart?) of gold".
Who decides what is notable? If the article doesn't make a credible claim of significance or importance, any administrator can speedily delete it. Otherwise, it may be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion, when there is a week's discussion and the community decides.

JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Morella Addams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morella Addams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morella Addams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ryan Vesey 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy-deleted it, as it's a clear A7 candidate, entirely unsourced, and violates policies governing biographies. Please read WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO, as the subject is portrayed in a sexualized environment in the deleted content. Acroterion (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, don't log out to remove speedy deletion tags. AfDs can be closed at any time if they're clear speedy deletion candidates, the more so if they violate BLP policy as this one did. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think he logged out to remove the tag. The IP was different from one he used before. Ryan Vesey 19:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, and I wouldn't take action on that basis in any case unless it was blatant. Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Talk:Morella Addams"

A page you created, Talk:Morella Addams, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Eye snore 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-created the page, as the deletion was a violation of Wiki standards, requiring a seven day period of discussion.

Read WP:BLP, then read it again. I've protected the title against re-creation, for the sake of the article subject and yours. Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I'm not "welcome" to create a page, as I can't keep up with the vicious attack on both the web page and my account, and the on-going violations of Wiki standards.

No one has addressed the violations of standars by JohnCD

You are writing about a living individual on a top-ten website, where there are stringent rules requiring the protection of subjects of biographies. You have disregarded those rules. JohnCD's deletion was completely appropriate, as has been explained to you several times. In fact, speedy deletion is required by policy. You are the one violating standards here. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't 90% of the garbage (and false info you "admins" are spreading) actually be on the "talk" page that you deleted?

and I didn't log out of anything. I've asked others to help. NO, rush to judgement.

Do you think WP:BLP is false? Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I 'Think' is false(?):

1. That I logged out of an account.

2. That I "damaged" JohnCD's account.

3. That I'm welcome here.

I've spent more time updating this page, than talking about the real issue: Trying to create, edit, update an article about a wonderful and popular person.

The article was flagged for "one week review and input" and what is going on? Quick deletion, lengthy discussion on MY 'talk' - most of which should be - is about something that should be on the web page in question.

If you were to do your 'administrator' job, and stop harassing me, that web page would be up to minimal standards by now, and (noting about the IP address) someone ELSE is (was?) trying to work on it.