User talk:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as reminder --SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation[edit]

Michelle Belanger - Your Sock Account Miss Belanger, the Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Using several accounts to promote your own material is not tolerated in here. Please use your own website for that. Your actions around Wikipedia have already earned you the deletion of the article you created in here about yourself, as well as all the references you have been adding across articles with the single objective of bringing up notability upon your work. If you don't wish to see your several accounts blocked, please cease this behaviour. Thank you. MarkChase (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusation. Kept for historic purposes.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 Ban[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing–Self-promotion in articles despite warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I contest that I am a sock puppet for the author Michelle Belanger, aka Sethanikeem. MarkChase appealed to TheRedPenOfDoom (User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Help_with_Michelle_Belanger_and_her_sock_puppets) to have me blocked after I undid a series of deletions performed by MarkChase had done to DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Obayifo, Urn_(band), Vampire_Secrets, and Vampire_lifestyle in relation to the writer Michelle Belanger. Initially I had noted the deletion in Vampire_lifestyle, which was done without reference to prior discussions about the author's relevance in Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Michelle_Belanger.

I then undid the reminder of the deletions performed by MarkChase after checking Special:Contributions/MarkChase. I noted that the only thing MarkChase had done prior to the mass deletions was an inclusion references to a book which does not meet WP:RS (see Talk:Ankh#Undue_Weight_on_Aset_Ka_and_Asetian_Bible.3F) on various wiki pages and a vote to delete a page referencing Michelle Belanger. On reflection, appeared to be a possible WP:Vandalism attempt. After restoring the deleted texts, I left requests on Talk:DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Talk:Obayifo, Talk:Urn_(band) for discussion before future deletions. Neither I nor Belanger were involved with the original inclusion of her name in those articles. Doing some research I found: Ruthven added the reference to DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Belovedfreak added the reference to Obayifo, Leonardobonanni added the reference to Urn_(band), and Eep² added the reference to Vampire_Secrets.

Taking an interest in a topic does not make one a sock puppet of an author who writes about that topic. Having an interest in an individual and wanting to make sure they are properly referenced in relevant articles does not make one a sock puppet either. Simply because I changed my mind on a statement I had made earlier does not make me a sock puppet. And just because I participated heavily in discussions on Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Michelle_Belanger and Talk:Ankh#Undue_Weight_on_Aset_Ka_and_Asetian_Bible.3F, does not mean I am Sethanikeem. The ban is completely unjustified and I feel should be removed.

Now, since it is simply a 24 hour ban, I could have let this slide. But I feel this appeal is still important because I feel I should be to be exonerated of the charge of being a sock puppet for Sethanikeem.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request is far too verbose. Also, the standard boilerplate decline:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —Travis ^talk 01:22, 11 April 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet for Michelle Belanger. The edits I most recently were restoring material inserted by prior editors that were relevant to the wiki pages.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for being a sock puppet, and your edits were indeed promotional. Sandstein 07:34, 11 April 2009 (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.

kept for historic purposes

About my recent ban: A request for clarification[edit]

I am starting this discussion on the talk pages of the three administrators involve with my recent ban: I wante to talk to the three editors/administrators I see as having the most understanding of the dynamics surrounding my recent ban: PeterSymonds, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom. I am not sure the most efficient method of doing this, so I will post it to each of your talk pages, as well as my own talk page. I if this is the incorrect procedure or if this is too long.

I do this as an effort to better understand where the dividing line lies between promotion and inclusion of legitimate inclusion of material, to better understand the dynamics of my recent ban further, and so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. And because I am really confused.

What I am lost with is how can it be considered promotion when including a individual in a wiki page when they actually are notable individuals in relation to those entries? I'll talk about specifics in this case:

Michelle Belanger in relation to the topics of DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Urn_(band), Vampire_lifestyle, Vampire_Secrets. Belanger has a notable part in these topics. She has been and continues to be a recurring presenter for the Dragon Con. she did appear in an Urn video with Don Henrie. She was the first third party published author to discuss psychic vampirism and the in a non hostile manner. And she was in fact one of the authors who appeared on the show Vampire Secrets. Additionally, with the exception of the Vampire_lifestyle page, she was listed in conjunction with with other individuals, and Belanger's inclusion in those entires was was done by third parties.

What I might be guilty of in those cases, and I will admit to this, is blindly undoing a series of deletes performed by another editor who might not have been aware of her involvement, when I probably should have more selective in my actions and what I chose to reinstate.

As for the Vampire_lifestyle page, I did seek to include the writers Raven Kaldera, and Lady CG, but since their works were self published, those references were removed. My choice to remove the references Asetian Bible from the Vampire_lifestyle entry came about only after a discussion I participated in on the Ankh page clarified to me that it was considered self published, and therefore did not meet the criteria of a reliable source.

Could I be considered a Belanger fangirl? Likely. But I would would doubt any entry that references notable individuals are free from input from those persons' fans.

But I am also a participant in the vampire community. A community I feel very strongly about, and one that I do want to see properly discussed in the wiki entries, especially with the sort of attention we have been getting because of Twilight, True Blood and all the other vampire related topics out there. And this includes being aware of the activities of one of our more prominent members – one who has even appeared on Fox news on December 8th as "an expert on the vampire community".

And if I were really out to be promotional of Belanger, I would have sough to include her on the Don_Henrie entry (a person she has had repeated contact with) and the Paranormal_State entry (a show where she is a recurring psychic consultant for). Instead, I've chosen to not involve myself in those entires, respecting the fact that if it is considered notable to other editor, she will be added. I've also not attempted to create a page for Belanger. Again, I leave that to come about on it's own from the collaboration of other editors.

What I feel I see happening with here is struggle I suspect occurs with an individual in the process of actually gaining notoriety. It might appear that the inclusion of Belanger on these topics is promotional attempts, but, like it or not, the reality is that she is indeed an author, presenter, singer, and television personality at this point. And the editors adding her to these entries are aware of this.

Now, if it will help, I will dig through and cite every single possible appearance of Michelle Belanger I can find in media that is not from a vanity or self-published source.

Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide on this matter. And I hope that simply asking for and attempting to give clarification doesn't get me banned again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the community decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Belanger that she is not notable enough for an article, so I recommend that any mention of her in an article be accompanied by reliable sources that demonstrate why mention of her is important to the topic at issue. Sandstein 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help if you wrote something about yourself on your user page, so that other editors won't mistake you for Belanger or her agent. Sandstein 21:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's far enough, and I am not attempting to make an article for her. But that does not mean she's not becoming more notable with the passage of time. I'll give you an example: J.K.Rowling. Did anyone know or care who she was before 1997? While I remember first hearing about in while sitting in a in tech support cubical in 1998, if anyone had attempted to create a wiki page for her then, it would have gotten thrown out for much the same reason Belanger's was.

So yes, I will make certain to include citations for references to Michelle Belanger. But it would be nice to assured that simply adding factual and cited information to an article is not going to get me banned again. I am a little concerned that there was no warning or request for clarification before I was slapped with a ban. Essentially, the assumption of good faith was not granted to me. Instead, MarkChase immediately called for a ban on me, and PeterSymonds immediately complied. I am really wanting to believe good faith, but I'm having a tough time.

As for my user page, I'm rather cautious about this, as I am active under another name that I would rather not have linked here in relation to all this. How ever, maybe I'll simply make an Urban Dead reference, and go from there.

And if you would, could you look into the ban on NyteMuse. She's not me. She's not Michelle. She just happen to have stupidly and blindly walked into a ridiculous wiki warzone. I've left more information about who she is on her User_talk:NyteMuse.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I am not now (and unlikely to ever be) an administrator. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you keep getting the wrong end of the stick entirely. I blocked you for promotional material. It was a temporary block for disruptive editing. I did not block your main account for sockpuppetry; if I had done, I would have made it very clear. You are now unblocked, so please take the advice of others and keep all of your material non-promotional. Thank you, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Belanger, many delete !votes were from socks of HustavusPrimus, and the rest were concerned about the article being promotional. I would suggest that you make a draft in userspace (for example User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy/Michelle_Belanger) trying to be as neutral and non-promotional as posible, and that you submit it to WP:DRV, asking that it's re-considered because the old AfD was poisoned by socks.

My advice, try to write a good neutral draft that has a chance at passing a new AfD discussion. Specifically, try to meet some of the criteria at WP:BIO. If you have the original newspaper articles, or scans of them, then put images of them in imageshack and link them from the DRV so people can verify them. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on compiling a list of coverage for Belanger, such as newspaper and magazine articles, radio and television interviews, and book references. From those I will draw what I can to a basic biography. Since I'm nearing finals at this time, something like this is likely to take a few weeks. Which I figure a good, solid entry takes time to develop to begin with. I will let you know when it is complete if you would care to look over it before I submit for re-inclusion. Thank you for this suggestion and advice.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Lifestyle[edit]

Hi and thank you for your kind message on my talk page. I also wanted to add some health considerations and risks related with the sanguinarian practices, so we could create awareness of anyone that might read the article and be interested in vampirism. I talked with Firestorm about it, but we must be careful on referring only scientific and peer-reviewed sources, since other sources published from the vampire community itself, even if published by a reliable publishing house, would not be accepted as reliable under wikipedia's standards. They are not unbiased opinions. Makes sense, but makes the process of selecting viable sources to upgrade the text highly difficult. Let me know of what you can find... Cristina Torres (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GustavusPrimus[edit]

The accounts MarkChase and Cristina Torres have been found to be a puppet account of GustavusPrimus [1]. The decision occured earlier today, so none of the involved accounts have likely had time to attempted to dispute this ruling at this time.

At this point, it appears to this editor that the actions of GustavusPrimus, under the guise of MarkChase, are directly related to a targeted vendetta against the author Michelle Belanger, as well as attempts to promote Aset Ka material [2] [3] [4]. In addition it also appears to this editor the three accounts have been involved with vote stacking both for the re-inclusion of an entry related to Aset Ka [5] as well as vote staking for the deletion of an entry related to Michelle Belanger [6].

Upon further research, I intend to keep an eye on the activities of the following accounts:

Selthius who at this point only contributed to voting for the support the reintroduction of an Aset Ka entry [7]
Hellensmith37, who at this point has attempted to promote Aset Ka material and support the reintroduction of an Aset Ka entry [8]
Deadlypoison who is referenced to having worked on an old Aset ka article (the orginal?) in the debates to reinstate the Aset Ka entry [9]
SydLyra who participated in all of and only five delete debates, including one targeted at Michelle Belanger [10]
The IPs of 85.40.161.34 and 193.137.158.79

I am not filing any additional reports at this time because I am going to assume good faith on the part of GustavusPrimus, and hope that the editor will learn from this mistake. However, this does not preclude me from noting this information for possible future reference.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions link for Deadlypoison [11]. It seems that wiki does not tack anything prior to this.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really?[edit]

Cristina_Torres/GustavusPrimus/MarkChase is blocked on April 26, 2009 Diana_LeCrois created April 27, 2009.

Hops in right away with deletion reviews. Makes some minor edits to various articles. Ads a whole ton of stuff and makes some very big sounding statements on her user page about concerns of NPOV, SPAs and sock puppets. Knows an awful lot of wiki code for a user less than a two weeks in [12] (though admittedly, so did I from my brief sting editing some pieces on the Urban Dead wiki[13]).

Seems to have a lot of concerns about a recent deletion review of the Belanger article, making sure to notify an editor who is strongly involved with the Blood of Angels AfD that the article was under review [14].

And is now concerned with the page's userfying [15], seeming to know already a lot of the page's history, including that Kheperu refers to Belanger's spiritual house.

I will do my best to maintain good faith, but I am still uneasy about this development.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Padron[edit]

I am an old time Wikipedia Editor. My old account was put into retirement by myself a few years ago when my academic life was undergoing a major spin and my lack of free time kept me away from my former tasks at Wikipedia. I have a several amount of admins that know me and my work in Wikipedia, as well as out of it. I certainly know pretty well how Wikipedia operates, being quite familiarized with most of its policies and having a long time interest in AfD & DRV patrol. If you have any concern, please file in a report, instead of lifting up senseless accusations. I dislike how most users that join Wikipedia with the intent of free publicity or other disruptive activities always end up by accusing other editors in a way to draw attention away from their own violations.

Either way, I will keep my eyes on your activity to sort out if you are part of this marketing campaign. Diana LeCrois : 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila anyone?[edit]

It appears I have been dragged into this huge mess (and seeing your talk page I now realize the extent), but Silktork is looking into the whole sockpuppet thing with MarkChase and GustlessPrimus or whatever, and my own little probs just like this case that happened 2 years ago. I am starting to wonder if these aren't all the same people. And Silktork has kindly offered (despite my mad ravings) to userfy the MB article. So, we'll see. So far all I have gotten from any admin for 2 years is a whimpy shrug and who cares tude. Blah. I'm going to get drunk. Anyway, thanks for being the one editor on the planet who actually seems to care. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gods, yesh I could totally go for a margarita. See new addition above. sigh

I added a bunch or references in the talk page for the Belanger page. I hope they are of use.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger is in mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 09:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see. I totaslly did not expect it to happen so quickly. Thank you for the excellent work you did getting the article up to shape. Any suggestion on what areas I might want to research for further improvement? I was thinking of seeing if I can locate some of the books she claims to have been referenced in and see what they have. I know I cannot use Kaldera's book at this time, since it's published through vanity press, but the others I am thinking might have some potential.

And thank you for your very diplomatic discussion with Diana LeCrois. I was getting worried I was reading a little too much in things myself. For now, I will do my best not to talk about other editors, except on my own talk page, and do my best to assume the best.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to build the encyclopedia, and what matters is that we do that in a way that makes the articles useful, readable and reliable. I am only interested in other users to the extent they help or hinder article building. The race, gender, religion, or sexual behaviour of the user is not my concern - nor is their motivation or history. What matters is what they actually do in an article, not the reason they do it, nor who they are. Michelle Belanger, for example, is very much welcomed to edit Michelle Belanger. What Michelle Belanger should not do, is edit the article in a manner to promote herself. Neutral, factual material and photographs, etc is welcomed. The material should, however, always be supported by reliable sources. It wouldn't do for Belanger to write about her childhood, for example, unless there were a reliable source that people could check. Worth looking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability for background to that. It doesn't matter to me who Diana LeCrois is - what matters is if that account is going to help build the encyclopedia or be disruptive for personal and emotional reasons. I assume that people will do good, especially when treated well. Treat people badly and they tend to react badly. I assume that Diana LeCrois will do good. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"further improvement". Ah yes. Some biographic details would be useful. A section on House Kheperu would be useful. It's up to you really. I became kinda interested in this whole vampire cult as I did a bit of research into the article - but, to be honest, not enough to know exactly how to develop that article appropriately. Belanger appears to be the main go to person for media articles on vampirism. I didn't spend enough time on the article to establish why that is. It could be the result of successful self-promotion, or it could be that she holds a prominent place in the vampire community because of the strength of her published work. Some neutral investigation in that would be good. Simply pumping up the article with stuff like - "Belanger appeared on The Simpsons episode 999, a poster on the back end of a New York, and was mentioned on a student radio show at 3 in the morning", is not going to be helpful. It has been established in the article that she is a prominent spokesperson for vampirism, and is quite likely THE most prominent spokesperson - what is needed now is more of the why. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I know I had a few margaritas (the blue kind) last nite, but c'mon! You guys are messin' with me right. aaarrrggghh! Inever got a chance to see the new revision before it got zapped. I left my comments on the new afd discussion. Back to Margaritaville for me. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star=[edit]

Much appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 10:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]