User talk:Damiens.rf

This talk page is not a battle ground

Please, stay cool.

Sfarrer

Please can you explain why you have arbitrarily decided that my page (Malcolm Phipps) is not good enough for Wikipedia - if you are so concerned about standards perhaps constructive criticism would be the better path to take ie. tell me what you (and I stress the you, as it is only your opinion) think is wrong, rather than just deleting the whole page. Having looked at other pages of notable karate people, I don't see any difference between their pages and mine. Please explain yourself. Sfarrer (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article as you wrote had to many problems to be fixed. It was better to restart from scratch. You should consider familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:ARTSPAM, to begin with. --Damiens.rf 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for the notice, or really the lack thereof. I think your concern should be focused on your disruption of the many articles you've reinstated your edit warring on after a lengthy time of uninvolvement once your versions were reverted with Consensus and per policy. I'm strongly considering a user conduct RFC to protect WP from further disruption by you. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Copyright judgement credentials

Since you seem to be heavily involved with copyright issues, can you please link your qualifications for judging copyright and fair usage? I ask because from the few pieces of work I've looked at so far you seem to have a very exclusionary viewpoint that seems to be out of line with the community's viewpoint. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens - I think that a reasonable majority of people support enforcing NFCC as written, but you seem to be interpreting it in an exceptionally exclusionary manner. Until you get more community support for your position on interpreting it, please stop editing in a disruptive manner and removing images as you have been. This is not OK. You can work through the consensus process to move or adjust consensus and written policy - but you aren't allowed to disruptively try to subvert it. Your ongoing behavior here is across the line right now. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not rely on credentials, but in arguments. --Damiens.rf 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war report

I've reported you here for edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was protected instead of a block. But if you continue edit warring, this may not be the next result. Discuss on talk pages instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF

I fixed this one too. Sorry, forgot to AGF for a moment... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're much welcome. --Damiens.rf 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But in such cases it's better to strike out the retracted text, instead of removing it, so that other user's replies don't look out of line. But thanks, anyway. --Damiens.rf 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might revise yours too...to match... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

COI

I'll look closely at the text sourced to blogs later today but in general Sanchez is stating her experience and opinion and as long as that is attributed there is no concern with using a blog per Wikipedia. Self serving refers more to statements which might inflate a person beyond the ordinary which non of this text does in Sanchez's case. As well... I have you watch listed, and this statement which I found on Dreadstar's user talk page is troubling and indicates you have a bias and possibly Conflict of interest per this BLP. This statement is especially a concern. What she writes about herself and about her country is never uncontroversial. That's a political blog whose author takes money from an enemy country. In a country like U.S.A., she would hardly be free at this time. I suggest you take great care with what you edit into the article given this statement unless you wisely decide to not edit it at all on this article, and just use the talk page to voice your concerns and comments. There is no leewaay for POV editing, most especially in a BLP article. Something to think about.(olive (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

What's exactly the problems with why I said? Aren't you being a little US centric? Please, elaborate on that accusation.

I'm the one removing the pov existing in the article. At least on the biography section, the article repeats her account of facts as if her blog was an reliable independent source, what it's not. For instance, her account of why she left Cuba and why and how she came back is self-serving and unbalanced. --Damiens.rf 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not disclosing either my political position which has no place on Wikipedia, nor my nationality. I'm suggesting you take care. You've amply indicated your position. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

Have I disclosed any political position in that statement? (My nationality is not a secret). Are you sure you've read it correctly? --Damiens.rf 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Kira Reed. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Kira Reed is a porn star: See [link suppressed by reviewer](NSFW). She doesn't seem to have a problem with it, as seen on this interview [link suppressed by reviewer]. Damiens.rf 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have edit-warred to call a living person a "porn star" in the article about them, without providing a reliable source in the form of a inline citation for this change, as you are required to per WP:BLP: [1], [2], [3] and previously [4]. This is a severe violation of our policies WP:BLP and WP:EW. Your unblock request indicates that you do not understand this problem. Even if the person "is" a porn star, it is a violation of WP:BLP to call her one without providing a source, especially if this change has already been challenged by others.

For this reason, and considering your block log, I believe that the current time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued violation of WP:BLP by you. Considering that you have been previously warned about the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP ([5]), in application and enforcement of WP:BLPBAN, I am hereby banning you from making edits about living persons for the duration of three months. That is, you may make no edits to articles about living persons, and you may make no edits that add, change or remove any information about a living person on any page (except as described at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans). If you violate this ban you may be blocked or restricted further without warning. This ban can be appealed as described at WP:BLPBAN.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 April 2011 (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.

I hope this unblock request won't take longer to be replied due to admins over-analyzing the links I've post in my defense. --Damiens.rf 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Given your own fact-tag blitz, it's ironic that you were edit-warring over trying to impose your personal opinion. There's nothing whatsoever in the article that qalifies Reed as a "porn star". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a completely unsourced BLP, and should actually just read "Kira Reed is an actress". When the admins stop "analyzing" the links I've provided above, they could unblock me and I volunteer to fix the article. --Damiens.rf 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that your "porn star" entry was satirical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I just thought it was supposed to be uncontroversial. But apparently, I was wrong. I was planing to source / clean the whole article later. Bad choice of priorities, I believe. --Damiens.rf 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, would you like to choose a different word/link to describe the administrative review of your unblock? I tend to think that your choice of verb to describe the review as in extremely poor taste. Hasteur (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the link posted in the unblock request, I suspect he was just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hasteur. Relax. Wikipedia can handle a little bit of humor. --Damiens.rf 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)