User talk:Raymond Francis

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article A.J Mistero, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Triwbe (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with A.J Mistero. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Triwbe (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Triwbe (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Your legal threat has been reported here . --Triwbe (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia until you retract your legal threat and promise to not make any more. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:56, 9 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I beleive that the person involved Tribwe, has been extremely unfair by picking at the profile of upcoming recording artist, he failed to ask me what I needed to prove that the sources behind the article were not legitimate and that the consensus of his action resulted my legal team to issue a warning, I apologize to administrators of this sounded harsh, but it's not the first time he has done this, many others have been at the wrath of his abusive attitude, but what are we without information that many people contribute to have a one man vote against us, to decide as if he were a god of wikipedia on who he should allow to edit articles

Decline reason:

You have not yet retracted your legal threat (any statements made privately by your "leagl team" are not relevant to Wikipedia, nor are your intentions for the future- only the current legal threat made by you is significant). If you retracted it, I would still not consider unblocking for any statement that didn't show clear understanding of the conflict of interest guidelines and the notability criteria, since you were about to be blocked for breaking those rules even before the legal threat. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 April 2010 (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.

{{unblock|2= I will retract my leagl team's legal threat and will pursue to try to advise the public who have the rights to see that information on public domain without bullying

Thank You

--Raymond Francis (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I will retract" is not the same as "I do retract", and you cannot be unblocked until the threat is withdrawn. Please note that by adding material to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the CC Attribution-ShareAlike license, and hence cannot claim that no other user can edit the information without a license as you did here, since you already provided a license for them to do so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along this line, please have a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Put simply, you cannot post copyrighted material on this website (if you do, it will be deleted straight off) and anything you do post is automatically released to the public under a free licence. Moreover, anything you post can and will likely be edited by other editors. To be unblocked, you must straightforwardly retract your legal threat(s). It would help if you further agree to abide by the policies of this website. Please also be aware that en.Wikipedia is not the public domain, it's a privately owned website with openly licenced, encyclopedic content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not think there would be anything to add, but I'm wrong. Agree with what has gone before. The deleted article does not assert the significance of the subject and thus meets criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe the page was deleted in error-- if you beleive the subject meets notability requirements, the way to appeal the deletion is to discuss the matter and ultimately [[appeal to deletion review. It is most certainly not to offer threats.. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, it is not a venue to place the "profile of an upcoming artist." It does not contain profiles. It contains articles. Please read up on the our policies and guidelines-- WP:N and WP:V for starters. Then stop trying to blame others for your failure to adhere to them. Then retract your legal threat. Then we can unblock you, and if you feel the subject does meet notability requirements, we can talk about recreating that. It is not bullying for us to expect the same of you as of any user-- follow the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 13:52, 9 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I seriously admit to have retracted my legal team's threat as of 09:30, 9 April 2010 (GMT) and will pursue to try to clear this up to the public, therefore I do, repeat do, retract and hope you all please understand that every member of the public has the right to see that information on public domain without this art by critique all you seem to have, self-opinionated power of god editors if you ask me, who get off having a power that lets them do what they want on here. "This is a serious issue as it seems that anyone can be an administrator these days, which is very puzzling to me, How can anyone just have this power of god control without anyone to monitor the monitors of the monitors, seems like the powers to be just gave up and left everyone to run what it seems to me is a (lunatic asylum without any warden) and instead of then not offering to help seek the proper information yourself's and then offer to assist the editor to correct their article instead of just declarying everyone else as not real information, just to please everones unilateral wet dream, get over yourself's for christsakes, I did not graduate from a university with a JD/MBA to think that anything I add would not constitute credible evidence but apparently I'm wrong as my article "AJ Misterio did not assert the significance of the subject and thus meet the criteria for speedy deletion". "Well why was it classed as not constituted credible evidence and why do I feel that the subject did meet notability requirements, Just because those rules say it is does not mean we can't amend them to fit around those poor unsigned artists who really need help to become known, you see all of those who do meet the criteria are the same who don't, they all started as unsigned nobody's and if signed artists have MySpace sites, then those who don't have the criteria and do have MySpace sites should also be classed as well". As for notability requirements, well we should just talk about recreating the rules around this in the first place, for starters stop trying to blame editors for failing to adhere to them, when you can offer to help seek the right information instead and make sure they do fit this criteria instead of all conspiring to agree when/where/what/how and why they should'nt exist. --Raymond Francis (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request above shows to us that you are unwilling to cooperate with others in a constructive, collegial manner; instead, you proceeded to cast aspersions on everyone. We cannot have that sort of thing on here. Unblock request declined. –MuZemike 21:30, 10 April 2010 (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.

{{subst:Request accepted|3= Freedom of Speech including what one person is alllowed to think about others, this does not have anything to with the reason why I'm blocked and is classed as biased, the reason why I asked to be unblocked was if I agreed to drop the legal proceedings, which I agreed to do.

Thus your declined reason is of no moral standing, so I therefore deserve and demand a SECOND OPINION, from someone other then Muzemike, this person is merely offended by my opinion, and opinions are like A55HOLES, everyone has one

Declining any unblock request for at least 48 hours - Unfortunately, creating a new account (User:Wiki Chief Justice) to protest your block, speaking of yourself in the third person, is not acceptable. Whether or not you should have been unblocked before, this is behaviour that is not acceptable. Risker (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declining unblock request. I don't see that you plan on abiding by the policies of this website. It's ok if you don't agree with those policies but you must stay within them whilst editing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]