User talk:Nomasmentiras
I have blocked you. You are plainly here for the sole purpose of attacking one individual and their work. That is simply not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomasmentiras (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I guess that's a way to shut down dialogue. Just block everyone who you disagree with. Clearly the person making this block against me for contributions to the Black Tulip (film) page has an agenda to quiet voices he doesn't agree with. I am appealing this block because the length of time of the block does not warrant the implied conduct and the conduct does not meet the level considered "vandalism." 1) the length of the block is "indefinite" and not based on a series of warnings or "short" bans and 2) There was no "vandalism" (and no specifics or examples cited in this vague block mentioned above) 3) Only factual information was provided by me and updated on the page, with real sources cited 4) The sole purpose of the account is not just to inform about this film (other wikipages have been edited not related to this film on this account). 5) The person who is recklessly claiming "slander" and "libel" on the discussion page for the film, is associated with the film as one of its producers and will likely say or do anything to thwart factual information that he perceives to be negative. 6) Furthermore, a film is not a person and cannot be "slandered" or "libeled". 7) The term "socialite" is not slanderous, particularly if this person has no other career but hob-nobbing with celebrities in order to get money from them "for her cause." Some people even consider social status as something to be achieved. 8) The person who is objecting to the Wikipedia material he perceived as being negative, has a real profit-based agenda, trying to keep factual information out of a Wikipedia entry because he does not agree with it and because it isn't promoting his film the way he would like. Wikipedia is not the place for him to promote his film and is a place where everyone may contribute both positive and negative news-worthy material. The material was first printed in the New York Times and is not original material. 9) The film is not listed as an official entry in the Acdademy Awards for best foreign film in any list currently on the Internet, to the contrary of what this producer claims. Word that the film had in fact been rejected is here: http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/academys-foreign-language-field-sports-65-entries-21680 and the film is in fact NOT listed to be screened at any of the Academy screenings for "foreign film" either in their print catalogue nor online. Here is the list of film screenings for foreign films that qualify: http://www.oscars.org/members/screenings/scr_flfa/index.html So that is not slander, it is factually-based. 10) No Wikipedia contributor should be forced to make phone calls to verify information, as the producer is suggesting. If there are no updates available either in news media or on the web by the Academy, then there is no proof of what this producer is suggesting. 11) If this socialite has made a film, and is in fact truly libeling her crew by making up stories about them "abandoning" her when in fact they risked their lives to work on the movie, and she is then caught in these lies by the New York Times, I think that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If the same socialite has fabricated exploitative stories to enhance the danger and appeal of the production location, in order to gain noteriety or to try to be nominated for awards -- then that leads others to question the reliability of information coming from sources close to this production such as said socialite. If they will lie about one thing, they will lie about everything. It's a credibility issue, which should raise red flags with the Wikipedia person who made this block. 12) The producer suggests that the socialite is a "philanthropist." However, there apprears to be little or no evidence that the non-profit that the socialite is allegedly running is making significant contributions to Afghanistan and in fact it appears it is NOT listed on the list of charitable organizations approved by Charity Watch, which warns that many alleged scam non-profits "popped up" after 9-11 to allegedly take advantage of the American public's sympathy for the Afghan people. The tax returns available online for this non-profit allegedly appear to show a considerable amount of money that is being contributed is rather being spent on "overhead" (meals, travel, film expenses, fancy hotels, restaurants and celebrity events) and it allegedly appears that little if any money is actually going towards the cause in Afghanistan. Groups such as Charity Watch warn the public about such organizations which take contributions and in which less than 50% of the money is actually going to any cause (it may be significantly less in this alleged case). It allegedly appears that the non-profit may have been created for the sole purpose of an alleged socialite creating an alleged film/acting career, in order to rub elbows with alleged celebrities and to use the cause of Afghanistan to promote herself and to obtain contributions from said allegedly gullible celebrities who have allegedly failed to look up tax information about the non-profit. 13) It is important that Wikipedia remain open to a variety of voices (including those like me who are for the cause of Afghanistan, but against the cause of alleged liars and alleged con artists) to shed the light on facts about alleged scams and lies, as a public service.
Decline reason:
You are blocked for adding your own opinions to Wikipedia. Your long unblock request indicates that, if unblocked, you would immediately add your opinions to Wikipedia again. Since that's the exact behavior you are blocked to prevent, I don't have any grounds on which to override this block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (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.
Nomasmentiras (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An "indefinite" block is harsh punishment that does not fit the perceived slight, and it was totally without warning and without reciprocal discussion, atypical of Wikipedia contributors and administrators. However factual and substantiated the material was, at no time did anyone discuss this issue on the Talk:The Black Tulip (2010 film) page in question or on my talk page, prior to indefinately blocking me. No one let me know of their "perceptions" as such, so I was blindsided. "Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work", and having an "opinion" does not violate Wikipedia rules (see: Wikipedia:About ). To clarify, I support films by and about Afghanistan and I'm all for women's rights. At not point was I injecting any opinions about the film or about its subject matter. I am for the ideas of films about freedom, so that is not an ideological issue here. But I am not for the suppression of facts, which the filmmmakers are trying to achieve.
I understand why someone might jump to conclusions when reading the long-winded and groundless objections of the inexperienced Wikipedia contributor, the film's producer "Chris Cole" on the film's talk page. The accusations, however, are unfounded. I'm not a vandal and the objected content doesn't meet the criteria of WP:VAN, nor is it "slanderous" and therefore a block is unjust and violates Wikipedia's blocking policy. I did NONE of the following: write obscenities or use crude humor; there was no page blanking, and no insertion of nonsense into articles, nor was there anything resembling the "slander". Blocking of the permanent and indefinite type is an extreme WMD and should be reserved for those who write cuss words or real slander or who blank pages. Furthermore I was also accused of using the account for the sole purpose to "attack one individual," however none of the contributions have been to the pages of any lone individuals and I have made other contributions not related to the page in question. One individual is not unjustly attacked in the article in question either, but is merely described as a "socialite" which is something that the complainant finds objectionable. That hardly reaches the level of slander or libel.
A film is NOT an individual and can't technically be "slandered" or "libeled" either, as the complainant is accusing. I merely added content to an article on that was referenced from The New York Times (entitled "Snickers Greet Premiere of Afghan Film" -- that's the Times' title, not mine) and other sources, including documentation of some potentially negative statements made by the director and others. Negative statements are not in and of themselves "slander" and are a part of Wikipedia's content. The information came from the mouth of the director (and others) and was reported in a major newspaper, and cited with sources.
The person (Chris Cole) who is complaining on the talk page Talk:The Black Tulip (2010 film) is largely trying to claim that this film is not an "American" film. In fact, he is claiming that the statement that it is "American" is itself "slanderous" too. In fact the production company's OWN marketing promo on You tube states that it is "the first "American film" shot in Afghanistan." I'm sorry, but since when would calling a film "American" considered to be slander worthy of blocking someone from Wikipedia anyway? Clearly the producer has another agenda, to misidentify the country of origin in order to garner a potential awards nomination as a "foreign film" and the identity of the director as an American (even if true) threatens that hidden agenda. It is clear that the producer(s) intent is to scrub the film's page of anything, even factual information, that they perceive to not promote the film in a positive promotional light.
Contrary to the producer's assertions, the film is not listed as eligible in this year's Academy foreign film race in any current reliable source on the Internet and yet HAS been documented on the Internet to have been "disqualified". But instead of documenting his claims with cited references like I did (he suggests contributors make a phone call), the complainer here just has me blocked with frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations of slander. It is a fact that the film was disqualified and I'm sure as producer he knows it. Instead of retrieving a dead link, and updating it, he rushes to conclusions that it doesn't exist and yet doesn't provide any of his own to prove his point. Here is the link. It is not dead: http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/academys-foreign-language-field-sports-65-entries-21680 where it is stated by a known Hollywood reporter that "The list of qualifying films means that “Black Tulip,” the entry submitted by Afghanistan, has been deemed ineligible by the Academy’s foreign language committee." The reference about the film being disqualified was originally ADDED BY ANOTHER USER to the page in question and the reference is also available on this Wikipedia page: List of Foreign Films where again, the film is listed as "disqualified" from inclusion in this year's Academy long list of foreign eligible films (again, information that was added by ANOTHER Wikipedia user, not me). Clearly the producers of the film are trying to dupe the public into believing that the Academy has accepted their film or they are trying to change that outcome of their rejection, when it likely does not meet the criteria for eligibility as a foreign film. In fact, ironically their own production company has advertised the film as "American", stating that the film is the first "American" film shot in Afghanistan, a statement which was made in one of their official movie promo trailers on You tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4tK4SB6Fys
Furthermore the person, "Chris Cole" USER: "67.250.12.122" who claims he is a producer on the film, is trying to take WP:OWN ownership of the page and made a statement as such, about how he is trying to control "our" Wikipedia page. He doesn't own this Wikipedia page -- it is not his. It belongs to everyone, and all material about the film may be submitted, even if the material may be in his opinion, "negative". It may be negative, but it definitely is not slanderous and it is not original writing and it is not opinion, it is backed up by references.
However, since this blocking, the page has effectively been blanked to only show positive information or information that is redundant with the imdb. That hurts Wikipedia. It is not here to just promote films, especially unheard of films from unknown filmmakers.
The other assertion that the term Beverly Hills "socialite" is any way damaging or slanderous is ridiculous. It is not. The complainant (Chris Cole) is not an experienced Wikipedia contributor and obviously is not a lawyer and doesn't comprehend what slander ISN'T. Saying someone is a "socialite", when the large part of that person's life has revolved around socializing (as in the novice director, Cole's case) is not slander. For example, Paris Hilton's Wikipedia page clearly states that she is a "socialite", as do other Wikipedia pages. The use of the location "Beverly Hills" is true to the offices of the non-profit which the director runs (and as a prime location by reported events she has held on Rodeo Drive). That is factual. It also substantiates the assertion that Cole is an American and resides and does business largely in the United States, specifically in Beverly Hills, and not in Afghanistan, a point of perceived controversy here.
The only qualification for an article about this film in Wikipedia is ironically that it was rejected as an Academy submission, because the film is not notable, has not screened in festivals nor widely and has not been reviewed. Furthermore, the filmmaker is not a professional and has no prior significant film industry experience that would warrant inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. The Wikipedia page was clearly set up for one reason only -- to promote and market the film and its makers and to spread misinformation about the film's eligibility for consideration for any possible awards.
A large, diverse Wikipedia contributor base provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented -- but you can't have a large base if you immediately block anyone who (one inexperienced) Wikipedia contributor disagrees with.
I apologize for the length of this request and the previous one, but I have been permanently blocked and this is the only place I am able to write my objections to the numerous false and misleading accusations made and respond to the blocking which occurred without any kind of warning or dialogue, and without cause. I request, humbly, to have the block lifted. Thank you for you time and for making Wikipedia into a place where all opinions can be found. As you can see I am a serious Wikipedia contributor and not a prankster nor a vandal. I promise that the account has been and will be used to make other positive contributions in the future.
Nomasmentiras (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Re-hashing your arguments against this film is not the way forward. As far as your unblock request is concerned, nobody cares why you were acting the way you were, just that you did. Please compose a new unblock request that addresses your actions as opposed to trying to argue your points about this film all over again, and please try to keep it brief and to the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (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.
Nomasmentiras (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks for your review. I understand that the complainant "Chris Cole" 67.250.12.122 may not agree with the material I have contributed to the page The Black Tulip (2010 film), but nothing I did rose to the level of an indefinite block without warning. It surely was not WP:VAN, nor WP:SPA and doesn't meet that criteria. I think perhaps the issue is being confused here, and it is more of an issue of edit warring with a novice Wikipedia contributor (the complainant) feeling that he has the right to purge the page of any negative material, even if that material is documented. He has done this repeatedly without discussion on the talk page. On the other hand, when I have made major changes or reverted any advocacy vandalism he or others close to the page have done, I have made comments on the discussion page.
On the of attacking an "individual" charge. No individual was attacked. The page is a film page, not an individual's page. The complainant objects to the words "American" "socialite" and "Beverly Hills" as "slanderous" or "libelous". You can look those words up, they are not slanderous and they are used quite often in Wikipedia to describe people, locations and personalities such as Paris Hilton. Those are descriptive words only and they do not imply any slanderous connotations and Beverly Hills is one of the most desirable communities in America and many people strive to be socialites. The other material the complainant objected to was cited with references from sources such as The New York Times.
When I have added the material in again after he has blanked it/scrubbed it, he or a few others with an apparent close connection to the material have tried to blank the page and one of them (User:76.172.59.26 / User talk:76.172.59.26) was warned by (User:Bbb23 / talk) after blanking portions of the page (after I was blocked). User:Bbb23 warned the user to not blank whole sections of an article and reverted the vandalism and restored some of the material that was controversial, but which was cited:
-00:09, 17 December 2010 (User:Bbb23 / talk) (5,517 bytes) (Undid revision 402660990 by 76.172.59.26 - not where link belongs) (undo) -00:08, 17 December 2010 User:Bbb23 (5,644 bytes) (Undid revision 402660575 by 76.172.59.26 - unexplained removal of entire section) (undo)
Although I disagree with the complainant's assessment, the punishment for edit warring WP:EW, a 24-hour block (which this block has already exceeded), is much less than that of a WP:SPA, which clearly this is not a case of. I have demonstrated that I have a niche interest that might be confused with a single purpose account, but that I have made other contributions with this account that are not related to this and it is not single purpose. I have also demonstrated with my contributions that I am a serious contributor who understands and tries to follow the Wikipedia rules. I intend to continue to be diligent about that in the future as well. Nomasmentiras (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I would unblock you if I thought you would go off and edit articles on tulips, or Afghanistan, or films, or anything but this article. Unfortunately, your polemics suggest that you'll go right back and start editing it again. If you confirm that you'll let this one article alone and find something else to interest you, I will consider unblocking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (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.
- FWIW - You said above "many people strive to be socialites" - therfore one may then say "some do not". Thus putting a reference on the word socialite, when the reference does not state that the person is a socialite, is pure original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the above, a variety of issues have been raised on Talk:The Black Tulip (2010 film). Until those seasonably challenged issue are resolved through a consensus discussion that has been properly closed (in this case, it will have to be closed by an admin), adding such content back into the article would violate the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)