User talk:Mfalc1

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

This editor participates in the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. Please feel free to join us.

PhD

This user is a doctoral candidate at Temple University in Philadelphia triple majoring in Mass Media and Communications and Multimedia with an emphasis in Law and Physics and international business and marketing.

en-3

This user can contribute with an advanced level of English.

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

December 2015

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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the same editor as the blocked User:LaserShows as well as the blocked User:P.a.w.n. Lasers; any more of this and we should simply blacklist the laserlightshow link he's been trying to spam for several years now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:31, 30 December 2015 (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).

Mfalc1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not know that I was not aloud to warn the parties that vandalized my articles and photographs that I was going to call the police on them, and then contact an Attorney to file a lawsuit. It's obvious that on home page of wikipedia.com, nor on any welcome page, or instructions pages. There is no upfront message or warning signs that this behavior is not aloud and it is still not there now, after this incident...

We tried tried to:

Resolve the matter in a AFD discussion with (talk) & (talk)

Resolve the matter in Wikipedia:Deletion_review#P.A.W.N.

Resolve the matter in a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

In a result of myself questioning the Admins authorities, (talk) went to Commons and rage-nominated a dozen of my images for deletion. Then they went to articles and rage deleted all mentioning's of P.A.W.N., both the photographs and article mentions have been on Wikipedia since 2010, but these admins repetitively abuse their admin privileges.

Next, they put an indefinite block on my account, so I can't event continue a discussion to argue my case. There excuse is that the references barely mention P.A.W.N., where they are incorrect because:

Most of the articles are either entire interviews, or entire articles about P.A.W.N.

Furthermore, they say the references that are published P.A.W.N. do not count? Do they think I own Mtv, and I own Viacom, and I own Philadelphia Inquirer Obviously, they did not go to the links and read the references ...because that is where the articles are from? How could I self Publish on Mtv or The Philadelphia Inquire?

Plus there are 30+ more direct references.... which you can't even see anymore because they deleted the edit history, and they deleted all the previous history to cover up there vandalism.

In the real world, if you can not settle a manner in letters, or in a verbal conversation... then you seek legal actions, and I exercised my legal rights as a US Citizen, and was penalized for it.

Additionally, I followed the rules and guides to dispute resolutions, and they ignored all additions and changes in the articles.

They asked for more references, and I added 15 more direct references, not mentions, not secondary references pointing to other important statements in the article, these are direct references entirely for P.A.W.N.

I do not think they took the time to research the article and references in entirely, but instead quickly glanced at it, and abused there administrative privileges by:

Deleting Back Links

Deleting Photos

Deleting Articles

Blocking Users (all for a period lasting 12 days long of vandalism.)

Decline reason:

Pursuing legal action is not forbidden and nothing at Wikipedia prevents you from seeking whatever legal redress you think necessary. However, for your own protection and for the protection of Wikipedia and its editors you may not edit Wikipedia while your legal action is unresolved. CIreland (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2015 (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.

@CIreland: I agree with you, and that is also what I said above. They have been vandalizing my account for 2 weeks now, I filed all the wiki procedures, so I said the next step is me contacting the Police & an Attorney, I did NOT say legal action was started, or I did it already. Mfalc1 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLT even the hint of legal action being considered is sufficient for an account to be blocked until 1) the threat of action is unambiguously redacted or 2) legal action has been concluded. The threat of legal action produces a chilling effect on collaborative editing. If you seek to be unblocked then you must rescind your legal threats otherwise, the administrators will not be unblocking your account. Blackmane (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment. Ymblanter and Bgwhite are both administrators but as they have dealt with you as editors, per the WP:INVOLVED policy they are not permitted to use any administrative tools to enforce their editorial opinion. However, they rightly reported your alleged legal threat on WP:ANI where an uninvolved administrator checked the diff that was presented and it was confirmed that you had made a legal threat (whether said legal action had commenced or not). Consequently you have been blocked. Blackmane (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmane: It doesn't say that anywhere on WP:ANI. It doesn't say any legal threats, READ ABOVE: I said they been harassing me for 2 weeks now, so I:

Resolve the matter in a AFD discussion with (talk) & (talk)
Resolve the matter in Wikipedia:Deletion_review#P.A.W.N.
Resolve the matter in a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

There not even from America, there Administrators that over-abuse there administration rights:

They deleted the page 2 times.
They said the 2nd largest newspaper in America isn't good enough reference resource.
Mtv is not good enough either.
They don't even know what Mtv is.
They don't even have Mtv in their Country.
They delete 15 of my photos (some have been wiki for 5 years).
They say other accounts are me.
The article is not wiki-worthy.
They delete the back link references off of other articles.
They delete the history log.
They delete the previous conversations....

There not even from America, there Country of Origin is Russia. What do they know about America that gives them the right to delete or judge an American Article about music & events in America?

I don't go around criticizing and critiquing Articles about people in Chernobyl living in the woods, so they have no businesses critiquing Articles about America.

There Administrative right does not give them the authority to judge what happens in America, And weather it's "good enough" or "not" for other Americans.

There's 30 references which directly speak of the article, out of 50 references total.

There job is: to proof read, check spelling errors, typo's, etc... etc...

I doubt they even speak English - So how can they read an article on Mtv or The Philadelphia Inquire (the 3rd largest Newspaper in America), to check a reference for it's relationship to the Article.

That alone tells everyone, they can't read, or understand English, so they should be penalized and demoted as administrators because they falsified facts and lied to wiki that they can read and understand English.

They should have never disputed the Article in the first place. That is where they made a mistake. I am a long time monthly contributor to the Wikimedia foundation, and in return all I get is problems. Tell me, why should I continue to make contributions? Mfalc1 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country of origin is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is a global community and editors are able to edit whatever topics they choose - and they are entirely capable of doing so thanks to something called the ability to research. You don't have to be from America to be able to determine whether something in America is notable or not. The deletion review you submitted has, so far, resulted in endorsement for the deletion of the article, which I agree with. Recordings uploaded to MTV don't particularly contribute to notability, nor do passing mentions in articles. You also don't get to define what other editors' jobs are, and both editors have done an excellent job of creating and expanding content here on Wikipedia. Both obviously speak English perfectly well, and again, that is an entirely moot point to this discussion. Frankly, the only bad English I've seen is your repetitive misuse of there, their, and they're. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking the time to understand the notability policy, and that Wikipedia runs off of the consensus of the community. Trying to argue based on the location or English-abilities of editors will get you nowhere. Any donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are highly appreciated, but realize that Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines and policies for determining the content we cover, of which many editors around the world are familiar with. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has "rights" on Wikipedia. There are only privileges here as this site is privately owned and funded. Both Ymblanter and Bgwhite were both granted their administrator privileges through a community decision. Many editors who feel they have "rights" on Wikipedia fall into the same trap as yourself. Furthermore, editors who contribute financially to the foundation also feel they have certain rights that are above those of the average editor. I hope that your block has quickly disabused you of that notion.

Now, to address some of your points. Bgwhite sent the article to AFD where it was posted for the requisite 7 days during which no arguments, apart for your own and a few IP's, favoured the keeping of the article. An editor with an IPv6 address, appears and votes keep although it had never edited Wikipedia before. This is certain to raise sock puppet / meat puppet suspicions among WP:AFD regulars. The second IP, an IPv4 address, is registered to the Free Library Of Philadelphia. As you reference Philadelphia sources, it is also reasonable to suspect that the IP is either you or a meat puppet.

After the 7 day AFD period, Ymblanter assessed the consensus which strongly favoured the deletion of the article, and did so. When an article is deleted, everything associated with it is also deleted including the talk page. This is within his remit as an administrator. It is not the job of administrators to {[tq|to proof read, check spelling errors, typo's, etc... etc...}} That is the job of all editors who contribute to the site.

Administrators are tasked with, among others,

assessing community consensus in various discussions enacting the consensus where required
deleting pages
enforcing policy violations
levying topic bans in topic areas covered by Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions

Your request to review the deletion at WP:DRV was also the correct course of action, but the deletion was upheld by 5 other editors who had not !voted on the original AFD, four of these voters (Future Perfect at Sunrise, David Eppstein, Lankiveil and Hut 8.5) are also administrators. Including the 3 editors who voted on the AFD and the non admin who endorsed the deletion at DRV, the collective Wiki experience of these 8 editors is a staggering 73 years. If Ymblanter and Bgwhite are included, this increases to 87 years, an average of 8.7 years experience per editor. Their knowledge of policy, notability, verifiability, assessing and enacting community decisions is not to be dismissed lightly.

WP:N is the cornerstone for whether an article is kept or not. Bejnar, a 10 year veteran, very carefully assessed each reference that you cited and in all cases, it was shown that P.A.W.N was not the subject of the reference and was not discussed in depth, both required for a subject to be considered notable. Although PA.W.N satisfied WP:V, it was judged not to be notable and this is why it was proposed for deletion by Bgwhite, who was upholding the notability policy, and deleted by Ymblanter, who was enacting the consensus.

As for whether Ymblanter can speak English, the English Wikipedia has fairly high expectations when it comes to English competence. Editors who have a poor command of English are usually requested to edit on their native language wikis instead. Those that persist in editing and disrupt the project are swiftly blocked. With that in mind, you may reconsider your ill-conceived barb against Ymblanter. If he had not been able to speak English, he wouldn't even be an editor here much less received sufficient community support to become an administrator. As long as editors have sufficiently strong interest in a topic and are able to come up with good sourcing, they can edit wherever they please. If you have interest in the areas around Chernobyl and can source your edits, nothing is stopping you from doing so.

I should also point out that seeing as you are American and thus a native English speaker. For you to misuse "there" instead of "their" or "they're", as well as numerous grammatical errors, is irony of the highest order.

I've gone on quite a bit so I'll sum up. Your anger toward Ymblanter and Bgwhite is misdirected. Neither of them are harassing you nor vandalising anything. They are acting within their remit as required of them as administrators. Your article was deleted at AFD and the deletion was endorsed at DRV. This is not to say it is gone forever. When you believe you have solid sourcing as defined by WP:RS, then you are welcome to request the undeletion of the article at WP:REFUND, but until such time your article does not really have much hope of being kept. However, all of that will come after you rescind your legal threat. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even aside from the legal threats and other misguided complaints, the user's continual misuse of "there" raises questions about his own competence in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And not to mention that aloud and allowed are two completely different words. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "weather" instead of "whether", and various errors I'll generously call typos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Goya Foods - 2014 Super Bowl Weekend illumination with PAWN LASERS.jpg

Hello, Mfalc1. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Goya Foods - 2014 Super Bowl Weekend illumination with PAWN LASERS.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:PAWN LASER Movie Theater at Wawa Welcome America for the screening of Rocky Balboa at the Philadelphia Museum of Art with PAWN LASER LOGO.jpg

Hello, Mfalc1. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:PAWN LASER Movie Theater at Wawa Welcome America for the screening of Rocky Balboa at the Philadelphia Museum of Art with PAWN LASER LOGO.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:PAWN LASERS in Costa Rica over Lake Arenal copy.jpg

Hello, Mfalc1. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:PAWN LASERS in Costa Rica over Lake Arenal copy.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Projekt revolution SNOOP DOGG LINKIN PARK GHOST FACE KILLA cellular text messaging PAWN LASERS.JPG

Hello, Mfalc1. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Projekt revolution SNOOP DOGG LINKIN PARK GHOST FACE KILLA cellular text messaging PAWN LASERS.JPG — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]