User talk:Divinearmor

Divinearmor, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Divinearmor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bristol Regional Women's Center[edit]

The article Bristol Regional Women's Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Spam.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't spam--it's an attempt to harass the physicians. JJL (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bristol Regional Women's Center[edit]

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:30, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Clearly this is a political endeavor to block any articles I write or contribute to Wikipedia. Even after following the guidelines for other articles, my work is still blocked. Even after updating, for example, the names of our politicians, or the dates of an article, my work is blocked. After reviewing Magog the Ogre's pages, it's clear that our political views oppose one another. This is clearly a personal attack and not an attack over editorial guidelines. This needs to be handled by an administrator higher in the chain of command. Please unblock.Divinearmor (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. You were warned repeatedly that your actions were unacceptable; you persisted, and you were blocked. That's how it works. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:00, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

While I understand that there's a political agenda behind most of the posts on Wikipedia, mostly liberal and mostly due to the spread of as much misinformation as possible, this does not change the truth. I have read many articles with all the same information I'm providing, and they exist on Wikipedia. This is clearly a differing of opinion, with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines. If the articles I'm updating can't be edited by me, than most of Wikipedia cannot exist. Nathan Johnson or someone with authority needs to respond, not another admin with a political agenda. Obvious really when none of you have provided any evidence of what I'm posting that violated Wikipedia guidelines. You need to show something instead of stating "Nope. You were warned and I have the final say." Divinearmor (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned repeatedly that you needed to provide reliable sources for the information you attempted to add, and that you needed to discuss the matter before attempting to add the material, and you failed to do so (as with your edits to Bristol, Tennessee on 17 October). Then you created the article at Bristol Regional Women's Center which grossly violated our Biographies of Living Persons policy. If you are indeed affiliated with the Center, then it's an unacceptable bit of self-promotion/spam. If you're not, and your contributions and their tone would seem to imply this, then it's an egregiously transparent attempt to add your unsourced information by other means. Since you used the phrasing "We are a private gynecology office....", it is clear that you intend to be misleading and deceptive, and thus you have tossed whatever credibility you had as an editor. At the barest minimum, you would need to agree to a topic ban on all issues related to this Center, and potentially to the City of Bristol itself, before I would even consider an unblock. Given that every single edit you've made to this project has centered around this issue, I find that prospect unlikely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:38, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ultraexactzz, I want to thank you for making my point crystal clear. Magog the Ogre has written several Wikipedia pages where she (??) sites numerous people that are alive, entire biographies on actors and actresses, lists copyrighted materials (film titles, studios and more), and, as an administrator, has a clear agenda to removing anything with a politically conservative twist. All my information is accurate and clearly well within Wikipedia guidelines. So why are any of you having a problem with what I'm doing??? Magog is blocking me for the very reason she uses to publish her pages. Once again, someone with authority needs to address this, not another ideologist with obvious liberal political leanings. Thank you. Divinearmor (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Seeing as how you've posted three unblock requests with baseless allegations of bias, blaming others, and failure to understand or acknowledge any of the reasons you were blocked, I'm revoking your talk page access. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:15, 30 October 2012 (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 blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, now I'll never know what Divinearmor meant by that crack about my "articles". —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)FYI, the reason you were blocked is that you are clearly here to push an agenda of your own. The fact that you think that I have an agenda is clearly a case of psychological projection; you have no idea what my political affiliation is, nor does anyone else on the page. The fact is that you went and created a page with an attempt to make the subjects look bad, by pretending to represent them, when actually your purpose was to expose their names to the public for the sake of mob justice (ironically, much in the same way that Proposition 8 opponents went and exposed the name of supporters in an attempt to scare them off or even see injury to them). The fact that you're unable to see why this is a problem leaves you incompetent to edit Wikipedia, and you will remain blocked as long as you are here to push an agenda.

If you are some day able to recognize the problems in your actions and become wholly repentant of them, and will change in future, by all means email me and we may unblock your talk page to allow for a second chance. But please don't bother if you're just going to keep defending the indefensible. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]