User talk:Bonecrusherz

Welcome!

Hello, Bonecrusherz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Cedric Martinez, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Odie5533 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Odie5533 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 14:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abuse of editing privileges. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

My company represents Cedric Martinez from RHOBH. Someone keeps deleting his information from the show and we simply keep putting it back up. Cedric has starred on the show since season on and should be included as a recurring character. Please remove my block and instead block the users who continually delete Cedric's information from the RHOBH page. Thank you!

Decline reason:

We may not edit Wikipedia on behalf of our companies or our clients. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:02, 17 October 2011 (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.

Hello Bonecrusherz. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 you, 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James,

There is no conflict of interest. I am merely trying to prevent the vandalism of the site by those wishing to delete Cedric Martinez' information. He has been a character on the show since season one and should be listed as a "recurring character."

Hello Josh, I understand the conflict rules. However, now that you know someone is intentionally deleting Cedric's info from the RHOBH wiki page, shouldn't you or another administrator correct the problem by adding the relevant information that the vandals keep deleting? Thanks.

There are a number of issues with your edits - the primary problem now, however, is that you're completely denying conflict of interest and not responding to any of James' points.

Before creating further unblock requests, please review our conflict of interest, edit warring and neutral point of view policies. Also, you'll need to understand how verifiability and source citations work - you cannot add large chunks of data without citing it.

Due to the above concerns, I've lengthened your block indefinitely until we can resolve issues. Thanks, m.o.p 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said "I understand the conflict rules," it meant that I read the rules and understand there is a conflict because my company represents a star of the show. As such, I should not edit the page. However, that does not change the fact that the page is being vandalized by people deleting Cedric's information. So, please add the information back onto the site and reprimand the vandals who attempt to delete it. And, please remove the "indefinite" status since that would be unnecessarily punitive (under the circumstances). Thanks.

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).

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

Request reason:

My company represents Cedric Martinez from the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" on Bravo TV. He has been a cast member since the first show of season one. His information as a "Recurring Character" etc. has been repeatedly vandalized and/or deleted. I truly wish a wiki Administrator had corrected the vandalism so I didn't have to waste my time correcting it. But, unaware of the wiki "conflict of interest" guidelines, I have been correcting the vandalism for the past few months myself.

However, now that I understand the "conflict of interest" guidelines, I will no longer make changes to the wiki pages for Cedric's shows. But I need Administrators' help to prevent future vandalism of the RHOBH site.

So, please add the proper information about Cedric; monitor the page to catch the vandals so this problem is properly addressed and remove my block.

Thanks,

Bonecrusherz

Decline reason:

I'm not convinced that you understand why you were blocked. The Conflict of interest issue is relevant, and I'm glad to see that you've reviewed our policies. But the main issue is that, whatever your intent, your edits actually removed part of a template on the page - and made much of the infobox and the beginning of the article unreadable gibberish. Rather than going to talk:The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills ‎ and explaining why you were adding Cedric Martinez to the article, you just kept repeating the same edit over and over. That's a big part of why you were blocked. We need to know that, if unblocked, you will not be repeating this behavior in the future, and your unblock request doesn't do that. See also my note below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:26, 17 October 2011 (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.

On the issue of whether Cedric is or is not a "recurring" cast member - you'll need to discuss that at talk:The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and see if there is a consensus to include him on that list. You don't get to decide that for yourself. A really good way to prove your point, though, would be to show a source that lists him as a recurring cast member. Or, alternatively, if the sources list him a as a "guest" cast member or something similar, add him that way. If your sole intent is to see him added to the article, then you'll need to show sources at the talk page and let other editors make the change. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:26, 17 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

see above

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 17 October 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia because I have agreed to never make another change to any of our company's client wiki pages, I have agreed to not cause damage or disruption and I will instead, refer abuse and vandalism of our client's Wiki pages to Administrators for action. MZ (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. m.o.p 18:17, 17 October 2011 (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.

Please stop creating unblock requests - we will keep declining them until you've addressed above concerns. Your good word is not adequate enough - given that you're still interested in representing your client, I'd like to know that you've read over and understand the multiple policies referenced above. If you continue creating unblock requests without doing so, I will remove your talk page access. Thanks, m.o.p 17:58, 17 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wiki Administrators. PLEASE address Master of Puppets abuse of power. Common sense and my hours reviewing and agreeing to the wiki guidelines clearly demonstrates my good faith commitment. However, his complete failure to acknowledge this and his complete failure to address the vandalism on the RHOBH page; along with his punitive "indefinite" increasein my "block" time represents an extreme abuse of power and is not in the spirit of Wiki.

Decline reason:

And no.

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.

This is your last warning. Stop creating unblock requests without addressing the concerns listed above - our neutral point of view policy, our conflict of interest policy, our edit warring policy are all things you don't seem to understand yet. If you create another request, I'll remove your talk page access. Thanks, m.o.p 18:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you're aware, you do not need to post an unblock template to post on this page. Your good faith committment came into question when you ignored warnings on this page and continued to vandalize the article - so now, you need to convince an administrator that you know how to proceed. You've made no reference to my comments above, either about your edits breaking the article or about your client. At a minimum, I'd want to see that first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no vandalism, either by Bonecrusherz or by the users who removed the information. Recent edits have been disruptive, but it seems to be a combination of content disputes, mistakes, and lack of communication including no edits to talk pages. Peter E. James (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked Bonecrusherz due to private correspondence. We'll try to work out an acceptable, well-sourced way to include information that isn't seen as biased.
Bonecrusherz, I'll start a mirror of the article in its current state here. Would you mind adding your information and list of sources to it? m.o.p 18:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've tuned up the article; see here for a list of changes. Since I don't watch the show, I've avoided changing too much - however, I've tried to balance the somewhat-disproportional focus on Cedric in your last revision. I removed the mention of him in the lede - after all, if he's only a supporting character, there's no sense to single him out against a slew of main cast members - and trimmed his personal section to make it a bit less weighty. Of course, if you'd like to expand the biographies of the other stars (not too much, of course; we're looking for a healthy medium), then we can look at Cedric's section in more detail.

Let me know how you feel about my revision, and edit it as you see fit. We'll keep working until there's a suitable version made. Thanks, m.o.p 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MoP. I really feel the Star reference about Armstrong helping Martinez with his book (before his suicide) is important but I'm OK either way. Do you take this from sandbox to the "live" wiki page or do I need to do something?

If you'd like to re-add the reference, try to thin out a bit of the other stuff to keep the section lighter. But after you're satisfied with the revision, I can fix up some technical issues and move it over to the mainspace (where the actual article is). m.o.p 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MoP. I've tightened it up a bit. Please fix the tech issues and move it over! I'll add more on the Housewives bios later this week to make them more balanced. THX!

I've added the material to the main page as seen here. Great work! m.o.p 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Martinez[edit]

Please be mindful of our policy on biographies of living people. See WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Cedric Martinez. Thank you. Leave Lance Bass out of this. This template also could have warned you about making non-neutral edits; please keep that in mind as well. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - here's the reference for Lance Bass Link label

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Cedric Martinez. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP is NOT a gossip site. And what is that suicide stuff? It's unreferenced. You are going to have to understand that our BLP policy is quite clear, as is the requirement for reliable sources (NOT gossip websites). This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. You can try to increase the exposure for your client, but you're going to have to do that somewhere else if if means plugging improperly verified and gossipy information. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it's not gossip, it's fact. I'm trying to add the references but I'll take it to a sandbox so as not to upset you.

You're not upsetting me--you're disrupting the process of creating an encyclopedia which lists noteworthy facts. What's important to your client is not necessarily important to the encyclopedia. And BLP violations aren't tolerated in a sandbox either; just read the first sentence of WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Cedric Martinez. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understand the BLP - and all of the facts are verifiable and unbiased (i.e. Lance Bass speaks about his relationship with Cedric on "Watch What Happens Live" on Bravo TV and Star magazine, Radar and many other entertainment news outlets have reported on Cedric's book which Russell Armstrong was helping Cedric to publish before his suicide. Again, not gossip, just insanely dramatic. I hope this helps.

That socialite site is ridiculously unreliable. I note, "apparently Cedric will tell anyone and everyone about the dalliance". That says it all: this is nothing but namedropping, and there's a good word for that kind of behavior in English. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site may be "ridiculously unreliable" but it is 100% accurate in it's reporting of the relationship between Cedric and Lance. But don't take their word for it, WATCH the clip and you will see Lance telling "Watch What Happens Live" host (and millions of viewers) that he dated Cedric and has been to his house "many times."

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedric Martinez concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedric Martinez, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Cedric Martinez[edit]

Hello Bonecrusherz. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Cedric Martinez.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedric Martinez}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Karaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everybody Dance Now. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Bonecrusherz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Bonecrusherz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cedric Martinez" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Cedric Martinez has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 4 § Cedric Martinez until a consensus is reached. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]