User talk:Michaeledean

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Brian Quintana. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brian Quintana, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Quintana, you will be blocked from editing. You are removing material from reliable sources. Please stop. Tabercil (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brian Quintana

I have nominated Brian Quintana, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tabercil (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Brian Quintana, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my page

You'd be well advised to post that message you left on my talk page at the AfD nomination for Brian Quintana and not on the Talk page for the AfD itself. Tabercil (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Brian Quintana. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Tabercil (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Brian Quintana, you will be blocked from editing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spot, you added that message to the Talk page again. And comments like "Tabercil should get a life" and "Geniac has a history of tampering with Brian Quintana's entry" clearly show you are not assuming good faith from other editors. That combined with your clear attempts at ownership of the Brian Quintana article will result in your being blocked if you continue to act in this fashion. Tabercil (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your statement / non-vote from the talk page to the project page. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Brian Quintana, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Fences and windows (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduced unsourced information into Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Pedro Zamora, as this violates WP:Verifiability. Material added to sources must be supported by reliable sources cited in the article, and not by an assertion about "cursory searches" an Edit Summary. If you know of reliable sources to support the material you wish to add, then please add it to the article. The current material in the article is supported by the sources cited in it. The material you favor does not.

Also please do not make personal remarks or unsubstantiated accusations like "Winick has taken ownership of this article," as this is a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Attack, and WP:Assume Good Faith. The edits by myself and others to the article is based on adherence to Wikipedia policy, and not any influence on the article by Winick. Nightscream (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to Pedro Zamora. All you did was re-add the material about Brian Quintana, with a link to a webpage that makes no mention of him. You did the same thing with the assertion about Quintana's presence at Zamora's death bed, with a reiteration of the Free Library source that makes no mention of Winick saying this. In fact, Winick described all those present at Zamora's deathbed in Pedro and Me, and Quintana was not among them. You also reverted the prose passage about the organizations founded in Zamora's name back into a bulleted list, and re-wiki-linked the dates in the References section, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. If you continue to make disruptive edits like this, you may be blocked. Please cease, and learn more about the Wikipedia policies under which editing must be done. Nightscream (talk) 22:56, June 12, 2009

The Advocate

The fact that the story about Brian Quintana is not on the website does not mean anything. If you look at the entry for the magazine here on Wikipedia, it clearly says "The website for the magazine contains approximately thirty percent of the print issue online". Tabercil (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed to settle a libel suit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) 07:56, June 26, 2009

Can you prove that?? Tabercil (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised by an editor at the Advocate that they removed it in response to a cease and desist letter from Quintana. Because the suit was settled I have no Court filing if that's what you mean. Why else would they remove one of their more popular cover stories from their own website. I'm told Quintana and Winnick had a pissing contest and that the letter sent by Mily Zamora was prepared by Winnick and not signed by her. Thoughn I am not friends with either, I was at the kick-off of the Pedro Zamora Foundation where Winnick and Mily praised Quintana as the "founder" and the "Real Host" of the evening. I was also at Pedro's memorial and Quintana was clearly running the show. He clearly had a history and close relationship with the Zamora family. I am trying to locate that footage and will get it to you when I do. It appears to me that Quintana had an indiscretion in 1996, and any time he falls out with someone they drag it up to discredit him. I found him to be a tad arrogant but effective at what he does. He creates these celebrities and brands on the cheap, and then they replace him for someone more credible as if to avoid any association. I find no proof that he's ever been sued or convicted of a felony yet his the Advocate and LA Times make him sound like the Manson murderer. Quintana did fax me the White House request for Presidential video that he submitted, but I don't know if something like that can be added. Do you have a fax or e-mail I can forward docs to? 23:51, 27 June 2009 Michaeledean

If it's from the White House, wouldn't that make it a federal document, and therefore, in the public domain? If so, wouldn't that mean that it can be uploaded to the Commons for all to see? Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White House correspondence is not subject to the public records act of other federal documents. They will become available around 2040. They are still working on Nixon's documents. What do you have against this subject?Michaeledean

Tag edit warring at Brian Quintana

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brian Quintana. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jayron32 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana

Hello. Regarding this edit, could you explain what you think my "conflict of interest" is in the article? Hairhorn (talk)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Brian Quintana. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You had just come off a 24 hour block for edit warring, and your first edit afterwards was to continue the warring; thus the fresh block.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tabercil (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Daphnaz (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Nja²⁴⁷ 10:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work from an internet cafe with 60 plus computers. I am not the only person on all of Hollywood who logs on here. I always log in as MichaelDean so it is unfair to block the entire range of computers here. I cannot access unblock page so I am leaving notes here.

The autoblock on IP ranges is temporary and the Wiki software will reset it after a small period of time, but it will continue to reset the timer if attempts to create new accounts are made within this time period. You should not try to do that or edit Wikipedia as you've been indefinitely blocked for block evasion and abusing multiple accounts. Anyone affected by the IP block should create an account at home and then login with it at the IP address, or simply wait for the autoblock to expire. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email, Michaeldean, I see no evidence or sustainable claim that you aren't Daphnaz. The edit histories are rather similar. I am not going to unblock or spend more time reviewing unless you have some better evidence to argue your case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]