User talk:Swrocket

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Libel. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need help and a 3rd opinion over an active dispute. I have been unjustifiably blocked, and this is my only page that I can edit, otherwise I would have tried to post at the pertinent section. (which is the hotel_de_crillon wikipedia article.

I have been blocked, but neither the administrator that blocked me, nor the original unregistered vandailst that accused me have followed proper protocol. Throughout this problem, they have never tried to discuss edits and come to a resolution.

as such, I can hardly find a third party in the proper wiki protocol (because I can not edit other pages) and I don't think I am allowed to ask for mediation or arbitration until this option is exhausted....

Will ANY administrator please review the below material and try to offer a third (or fourth or fifth) opinion? This matter is quite serious. not only have I been blocked for trying to preserve a page that is repeatedly vandalized by user 88.166.113.208, that user and Centrx have accused me of libel. Libel is a serious issue that should not be lightly used. Its use if stiffling free speech and the truth. Furthermore, the revised (vandalized) product is incomplete and promotional for commercial uses.

In this case below, all the information was correct and true in the article to the best of my knowledge. It is not malicious, and when you read it, it does not even seem harmful. It is only that somehow the truth of the full article does not meet the desire of unregistered user 88.166.113.208 for their own promotional purposes and I am the victim here for trying to report encyclopedic information (which incidentally has been multiple edited from several sources, not just me).

Please read on, and if you can help, respond or even unblock me! If I get nowhere I will request mediation, and if I still get nowhere I will seek arbitration.

This is concerning the page ‘hotel_de_crillon’ and my blocked account user name ‘swrocket’.

The administrator ‘Centrx’ has incorrectly taken the word of a vandalist (IP 88.166.113.208) and instead of supporting my actions to protect an encyclopedic article, has accused me of POV. While there is no proof whatsoever, not even POV (as I understand it, pressing revert 3x in the same 24 hours)

Here are the facts as I see them:

User 88.166.113.208 has been trying to use the Hotel_de_crillon Wikipedia page to promote a commercial event known as le bal des debutantes.

Over time various users have contributed to the expansion and correction of language in that theme. I became aware of the page almost a year ago.

As is well stated, if you do not like the idea of someone else editing your work, then do not post on Wikipedia! The user 88.166.113.208 has at some point during the summer realized that more information was being shared about the event then they liked. The details (posted here below) are all factual, and make the overall representation more appropriate for Wikipedia users. After all, it is not a place for personal promotion, it is a please for truthful information for the public.

The solution that 88.166.113.208 chose to take, was to simply vandalize and delete the additional text which had been slowly developed by multiple contributors, including administrators.

There was no attempt to discuss it on the talk pages or discussion pages. There was also no attempt to alter any specific text in case there is a small detail that is incorrect. But the truth is that nothing is incorrect. I know this because I have been researching the event. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the article as it stood, and so one wonders what could be so ‘libelous’? Especially when there are far more negative details out there about the event.

When I noticed the vandalism, which took place without any explanation, I simply undid it to the version that was appropriate. Since then the page was tinkered with by various users. Then again last week, the user 88.166.113.208 noticed it was repaired and tried to delete it again. Not following any sort of wiki protocol, the user still failed to discuss, provide reasons, etc. I happened to notice the second vandalism, and so I reverted it again. (months later).

Three days after my second reversion, administrator Centrx chooses to revert to the incorrect, biased version that the vandal (88.166.113.208) is trying to have. Centrx then chose to block me from edits. Even though it is an established policy to notify a user if they are to be blocked, and indeed, it would even be appropriate to discuss the issue to establish a balanced result on the page, Centrx chose not to contact me about it. Centrx went well beyond established protocol and blocked the public IP I am on, and has caused it to be locked/ protected for a full year! Centrx also has given the reason as Libelous POV problem… when there is no such libel. He or she also failed to publish the situation on the peer review pages for administrators when they take such drastic action.

You can see for your self. But neither the vandal 88.166.113.208 or Centrx have shown what was libelous, and certainly the entire text they deleted was not libelous. Why not just edit what is allegedly untrue… or discuss it to establish truth (all the details can actually be cited in international media, and on the founders of the Lebal website, or out of the mouth of the organizer herself).

Rather than just act out uncivilly like they are, I wrote an email to Centrx stating my perspective, asking for the page to be reinstated and my id unblocked. I even proposed a better solution (I will get to that in a minute). I have still not received any message from Centrx. That administrator has obviously chosen to just act as an anarchist, abuse their power, unjustifiably punish me, and they do not care about the right or wrong of it. Clearly an abuse of the privileges Centrx receives as an administrator.

My concern here is the page. The information in the original full article is true and pertinent to Wikipedia users who may be seeking greater information about this public event which is heavily promoted to the public worldwide. Unlike the vandalized version, it is not just commercial promotion for the hotel and the le bal event though. There are rules on Wikipedia that it can not just be for personal promotion. There is no libel, because it is detailed true information about a public event and some of the controversies around it, explained in as fair a way as possible.

The REAL problem as I see it, is that it is too much information about le bal, and not enough about the Hotel de Crillon. Personally, I think that ALL of the le bal information should be on a separate page, and a simple link in the related articles section will suffice. At most, there could be a sentence on the hotel site that the Hotel de Crillon hosts the annual bal des debutantes among other events. (and then have the link below). I will be happy to do this for everybody, but I have to have my edit privileges back to do it.

I am surprised that Centrx has not followed established policies on multiple counts and was allowed to do what was done.

a good encyclopedic article which has been edited by many users was reduced to an incomplete one of commercial self-promotion.
The exaggeration and false accusation (libel) of an unregistered user (88.166.113.208) was accepted over the word of a registered user like myself. Centrx never pointed out what exactly was libelous, and if you look below, you will see there is not libel. For something to be libelous it has to be false or malicious and neither are present in the article. Furthermore, the rest of the information that was left up is not any better resourced/ cited then what was deleted. Delete all, or wait for someone to provide citations, but selectively altering the text to the promotional blurb is not logical. The question of libel could have and should have been discussed on the pages in order to achieve a balanced article.
The unregistered user is also a frequent guilty party of incorrectly adding too much inappropriate information to articles.
Given Centrx refusal to properly respond to my civil email (copied here below), and considering the excessive misuse of tools to block me, it may be that Centrx has a personal agenda to support the unregistered user.

I feel that the following needs to be done.

At least 2 unrelated administrators need to review these materials and help find a resolution. Centrx refuses to discuss this practically.
If you agree, my account needs to be unblocked.
The full Hotel De Crillon article needs to be reinstated (and locked)
OR an even more reduced version of the Hotel de Crillon needs to occur and a link to a new le bal page created (which I will happily do once you unblock me). OR no le bal page at all, because it is for personal promotional purposes.
IF there is libel, and I have not seen any example of that, then someone should share exactly what is untrue about the full article so that it can be specifically altered. Just because the truth is inconvenient, does not make it libelous.
Centrx administrator privileges need to be taken away for misconduct, at least until the user understands and correctly uses established Wikipedia rules (which they did not do).

Unfortunately the end is result is that Centrx administrative action has just made Wikipedia worse, and not better.

The full text of the article is here below: (deleted text is in red) Hôtel de Crillon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Hôtel de Crillon in Paris is one of the oldest luxury hotels in the world. It is located at the foot of the Champs-Élysées at No. 10 on the north end of Place de la Concorde. The Hôtel de Crillon reflects total opulence, beginning at the honey-colored marble lobby and into the adjacent restaurant Les Ambassadeurs. The hotel's public salons are filled with 17th and 18th century tapestries, chandeliers, gilt-and-brocade furniture, fine pieces of sculpture, and Louis XVI chests and chairs. Its Leonard Bernstein suite, on the top floor with a wrap-around terrace that provides a spectacular view of Paris, also contains one of the maestro's pianos. Contents [hide] • 1 History • 2 Famous customers • 3 Debutante Ball • 4 References • 5 External links

[edit] History

Hôtel de Crillon

Hôtel de Crillon (on the left) The five-star hotel, with 103 guest rooms and 44 suites, occupies one of two identical stone buildings, divided by the rue Royale, that were constructed in 1758 under the auspices of architect Louis François Trouard as a result of a commission from King Louis XV. Initially, both structures were built to serve as government offices and the eastern one continues to this day as Headquarters of the Royale, the French Navy. However, the western building was made into a luxury hotel and was soon frequented by Queen Marie Antoinette and her elite friends. She took piano lessons there. In 1788, François-Félix-Dorothee Berton des Balbes, the Count of Crillon, acquired the hotel, only to have it confiscated shortly thereafter by the government of the French Revolution. It was eventually returned to the Count of Crillon's family who ran it until 1907 at which time it underwent a two-year-long refurbishing by the Société du Louvre under the supervision of architect Gabriel-Hippolyte Destailleur. Today, through the Concorde Hotels Group, the Crillon is still part of the Société du Louvre whose shares are listed on the Paris Stock Exchange and is controlled by the Taittinger family holding company. The hotel is run by Anne-Claire Taittinger, Chairperson of the Management Board. American General John J. Pershing stayed at the hotel, as did Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt during his inspection tour in 1918. A year later, during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson and the entire American delegation stayed at the Crillon. A salon was set up with telephone switchboards run by the famous bilingual American "Hello Girls." A little more than twenty years later, the hotel would be occupied by the German high command during the World War II occupation of France. Other American Presidents who called the Crillon a temporary home were Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. The hotel famously features in the opening scenes of Nobel laureate Saul Bellow's critically acclaimed novel, Ravelstein. [edit] Famous customers The hotel was a favorite of the Joseph P. Kennedy family and royalty from around the world chooses to stay here, including the Zobel de Ayala family, George V of the United Kingdom, Hassan II of Morocco and Japan's Emperor Hirohito. The notorious swindler "Count" Victor Lustig impressed his victims with his luxurious suite at the Crillon. Other celebrities who favored the Crillon included Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Barbara Hutton, Charlie Chaplin, Porfirio Rubirosa, Orson Welles, Elizabeth Taylor, and Tyrone Power. In more recent times, Axl Rose, Allan Bloom, Saul Bellow, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mariah Carey, Roger Federer, Placido Domingo, and Madonna have stayed at the Crillon. When Dayanarra Anderson stayed here after her French TOPA dealings tour, the hotel even flew the flag of United States of America to salute her. [edit] Debutante Ball Each year, the Hôtel de Crillon holds the annual Bal des Débutantes (Debutante Ball) for the benefit of a charity. This unique and exclusive event, created by Ophélie Renouard and her team in 1991, is a "coming out" party for twenty-four young women, aged between 16 and 19, whose families are all members of the elite worldwide. The "new debs" all wear gowns from the French haute couture houses or leading international fashion houses. American presidential niece Lauren Bush caused a sensation when she was presented on the arm of Prince Louis de Bourbon at the 2000 ball. Her appearance led to a modeling contract with Tommy Hilfiger. Other young women that will make their first appearance at the Crillon Ball are Lauren's sister Ashley Bush; Amanda Hearst; Victoria and Vanessa Traina; Diana and Angela Mellon; Kathleen Kennedy; the daughter of Italy's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, Barbara; Princess Costanza Della Torre e Tasso; Countess Anastasia Tolstoy; Alice Ferguson, sister of Sarah, Duchess of York; Eva Rice; Lily Collins; Lady Tatiana Mountbatten; Cosima Ruiz de la Prada; Belen Domecq; Princess Lorenza de Liechtenstein; Princess Fawzia Latifa of Egypt; Elisabeth Senghor; Princess Caroline Murat; Princess Sarah Poniatowska; Diane and Chloé Bouygues; Caroline and Nadine Ghosn; the granddaughters of Filipino-Spanish entrepreneur Jaime Zobel de Ayala, Paloma Urquijo Zobel and Maria Zobel de Ayala y Anderson [1]; Marie-Solène d'Harcourt; Delphine Arnault; Ségolène Frère; Princess Alexandra de Croÿ; Harumi Klossowska de Rola; Izumi and Yuki Mori; Sarah Miyazawa Lafleur; as well as the granddaughters of President Mikhail Gorbachev, Xenia and Anastasia Gorbacheva; and Zoe, daughter of Russian entrepreneur Janna Bullock; the niece and granddaughter of architect I. M. Pei, Penelope Pei tang and Olivia Pei; and Bao Bao Wan, granddaughter of Wan Li, former chairman of the Chinese National People's Congress and executive vice-premier of China, as well as daughter of Wan Jifei, chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trading. In actuality this event may not strictly qualify as a debutante ball at all. It is alleged that Mrs. Ophelie Renouard seeks the children of big-name celebrities and nobility and uses their images to promote fashion and increase income for her PR company in Paris. Many of the girls may have already 'come out' elsewhere. According to some, in recent years the celebrities have tended to be not so well-known and the dress designs, though still from couture fashion houses, are often from previous seasons, not appropriate for young women, and (having been created for fashion models) do not fit well on the often younger and smaller girls attending the ball. It is a strictly "invitation only" event. [(the following was deleted because the vandal declared it 'libel')] There are both accolades and critiques of this event. On the one hand, young women may be excited by the opportunity to visit Paris, participate in this fashion event, and even bring two members of their family to see it (only two for each girl in most cases). Critics are concerned that Mrs. Renouard tends to insist on a very low BMI for the girls so that they fit size 2-4. While this emphasis on overly skinny women is similar to that of the entire fashion industry, critics say it is not necessarily healthy or appropriate for a family event. Allegedly parents are required to sign over to Mrs. Renouard's company all rights in all photographs of their children while at this three-day event without any compensation to the child or to the parents, and during the event the child is also made to participate in photo shoots at the design houses for the purpose of promotions and glossy magazine photo ads. Mrs. Renouard's company in turn sells those rights to various media outlets. The child and two guests are treated to a meal and a cocktail party, and the child can be considered a model for the dress. Others are concerned that children may face excessive criticism and scrutiny in the media or social circles. Promoters and sponsors are present at the ball for their own promotional purposes and benefits; e.g., jewelers attempt to sell their products. The ball has reportedly experienced a slow decline of wealthy and noble participants, just as there has been a decline in the couture fashion industry. Hollywood celebrities and musicians are preferred for their obvious media appeal to the general public and the perception that they enhance the sales of images and featured promotional products to various media outlets. Some former sponsors, such as the jeweler Mikimoto, have withdrawn for unstated reasons. [((End of deleted section))] [edit] References 1. ^ http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view/20090201-186770/Filipino-debutante-reaches-Paris-ball [edit] External links • Hotel de Crillon (Hotel website) • Concorde Hotels & Resort (Brand website) • Le bal website (Le bal website)

Coordinates: 48°52′02″N 2°19′17″E / 48.86722°N 2.32139°E Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B4tel_de_Crillon" Categories: Hotels in Paris | Hôtels particuliers in Paris | 8th arrondissement of Paris

Copy of your message to Centrx: Wikipedia e-mail - I want to appeal your block of me. Monday, November 9, 2009 9:48 AM From: "Swrocket" <stuart.white@rocketmail.com> Add sender to Contacts To: "Swrocket" <stuart.white@rocketmail.com> You have incorrectly blocked me centrx.

You are being manipulated by the organizers of le bal to block factual encyclopedic information that is pertinent to the event and to wiki readers. It just happens to be that the truth is inconvenient to the organizers.

For the last few months, the person has tried to vandalize the encyclopedia article by just deleting facts about what happens to be an important debate in the fashion world relating to eating disorders and health. The person who obviously made the request is unregistered by the way, contrary to me.

I am trying to keep wikipedia unbiased and non-commercial. The version of the advertisement that the le bal people want to post is a commercial piece, for their promotional money making activities.

I wanted to just delete it all at first, since most of it does not relate to the Hotel de Crillon, and it should be on a page of its own. But instead of just dramatically vandalizing it, I left it because it appeared that at least the information was more balanced.(and I did not want to be accused of vandalism)

You should unblock me. If you do not, I will appeal this to someone else.

Also, you should either re-instate the article to the complete informational piece, or you should reduce it so that it is actually about the Hotel de Crillon. As there are hundreds of similar commercial events held at the Crillon annually, and non of them are in the article, its obvious that the only place for a le bal comment should be as a link to a completely separate piece that can be linked in the 'related' category. In any created version, (which I am happy to create by the way), it should be complete. Wikipedia is not a place for personal promotional/ commercial activities. The article you edited is the most complete version and has been present for many months, and contributed by multiple users.

You should block the IP of the user that is declaring 'libel' because they are improperly using the term, trying to deny the truth, using the wiki for personal promotion, AND they regularly vandalize.

Please reply as soon as possible as to what you intend to do. swrocket

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Swrocket" on the English Wikipedia to user "Centrx". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

Second message to Centrx when I responded to his talk on my page(he still failed to point out what was libelous of the deleted text.

Flag this message Copy of your message to Centrx: Wikipedia e-mail Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:03 AM From: "Swrocket" <stuart.white@rocketmail.com> Add sender to Contacts To: "Swrocket" <stuart.white@rocketmail.com> Thank you for sending the links, but I have already been educated and reviewed the wikipedia material on the matter. What you should have sent me was facts about what is considered to be libelous, indeed the civil approach was for the unregistered user to discuss it on the pages to determine what is considered libel as they repeatedly vandalized the site over the last year for their own promotional purposes.

Based on my own research, discussions with the founder of the ball, and blog and newspaper reviews, all the of the information you have deleted is true. For libel to apply something must be false or malicious and you should have forwarded that detail to me, or simply edited any particular item that could be proven false. Really, if you read that article you see that the information you deleted is not even damaging... How could it be?

Your extreme response to this reveals your bias. Blocking me over unsubstantiated complaints is excessive.

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Swrocket" on the English Wikipedia to user "Centrx". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. Swrocket (talk) 10:39, 10 November 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).

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

Request reason:

please review the above details in which I state how the block was wrong, unjustified, and unfortunatly well beyond the normal civil reaction

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Hôtel de Crillon, the material you attempted to add, and the statement above, and I'm forced to conclude that this was a good block. The edit you attempted to insert appears to attribute ulterior motives to the organizers of the event, comes close to accusing them of fraud, and editorializes throughout. It was also entirely unsourced - not an encyclopedic contribution to the article. So it was removed. The proper course, at that point, would have been for you to go to the talk page and discuss the matter - which, I note, you never did. You just re-added the material, twice. You have a strong opinion of the matter, and that's fine - but you need to discuss your position with others, and come to a consensus. You're asking for third opinions here, but demand that they agree with you, which does not contribute to a collegial editing environment. Oh, I think the blocking admin could have provided more information when blocking you, and that someone should have discussed the problem with you before blocking (the first edit to this talk page was the block notice), but that's not a deal-breaker. In short, the block stands. Dekimasu's question is valid; I cannot recommend unblocking your account until you can demonstrate your willingness to comply with policy, and to discuss issues with other editors before adding disputed material. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:57, 10 November 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 appears likely to languish due to tl;dr, but I'll give a few thoughts. Reviewing deleted revisions is necessary to figure out the course of events here. Basically Swrocket added criticism of the event, which was reverted as libel, and he was blocked. The information removed was not properly cited and wasn't a glowing review of the event (it's visible in that mass of text above), but I wouldn't personally have considered it libelous or grounds for an immediate block without discussion and/or warning the editor first.

Swrocket, if you were unblocked, how would you proceed? Are you willing to cite sources and discuss edits on this topic? Do you have any conflict of interest, as implied by Centrx? Dekimasuよ! 11:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out this edit, which you tried to insert several times into the article. If this is the material that you wish to re-insert, I would lean towards declining your request for unblock. TN X Man 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User's sole action on Wikipedia has been to repeatedly add unsubstantiated defamatory statements, found in the deleted page history. —Centrx→talk • 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. I see also that the page itself has been changed to reflect encyclopedic content about the hotel and not the advertisements so I appreciate that my advice has been followed.

In response to comments and questions… Centrx says I have only ever commented or edited this page. This is not true. It is just that the logged in version may reflect that. I am not an administrator. I am not paid by Wikipedia, and I find trying to learn the idiosyncrasies to be time consuming. As I have to earn a living, I have not had time to contribute a lot. But as a socio-cultural researcher I happen to have a lot of skilled expertise on this particular matter and since no one else was trying to keep the information balanced, I felt it was my duty. I am also an expert on 20th century Europe, but there are plenty of contributors to handle that. No, I never simply deleted details without explanation(like several others did in the last week), and it’s correct I did not take the time to create citations because the rest of the article is also poorly cited… (why should I be the only one that has to do it? Or why should I cite the organizers promotions?)

One of you noted that I never discussed anything. Nobody did. Another administrator cleaned up the article about 4 months ago and did not leave a message on the discussion board.

Again, on the side of time saving, I felt that additions are self explanatory. Taking the time to write a new section, and then going on to leave a detailed explanation of the new section is a bit overstated. I make additions, and then I would try to watch the discussion board, and my talk page for any comments. None ever came.

I do not like to just delete others texts because I think most writers mean well on Wikipedia. But it is my personal idea that IF I am going to delete text, or that there is some issue, I would mention it on a discussion page. If nobody replies in a timely manner about it, it is only then that I would do something.

Also, per another comment, there has been a dispute in which I tried to add another link of material that relates to le bal. The content increases the public perception of the bal in totality and not only through the cipher of a promotional article or commercial website that is linked. When that was objected to by someone, I discussed it (in French with French Wikipedia administrators and the conclusion was that they did not want the public to be able to see that viewpoint. Contrary to my POV label, I did NOT try to repost after it was discussed. I accepted the consensus even though I disagree with it. In my view, there is no difference between a third party community blog linkages and the commercial site of le bal, or the commercial site of the hotels current corporate ownership. The evolving principle on Wikipedia is that links should only go to encyclopedic sources… however, only the blog (public feedback by many users) was deleted while the commercial links to the corporation, and the commercial event known as le bal were allowed to remain?!?!? If you think I am passionate about this you are right… the public is being manipulated and for whatever reason, the so-called experiment in anarchy that is Wikipedia is obviously controlled by corporations and not the people. I had been tinkering her and there, I have made simple spelling corrections etc. But when I got to this subject I realized there are a lot of issues and as an expert I tried to inform. Unfortunately I stumbled unto something much bigger than it appears and I am sure its not over yet.

I am sorry to see that you all think that editing serious materials that are important to public interest is call for blocking me. I am also shocked that you interpret my cautious occasional attempts to help monitor one small section of Wikipedia is some reason for blocking me. There is nothing bad about what I have written. There is still NO untruthful or ‘libelous’ comment in the originally deleted section. In fact the majority of my action, was to simply defend the section, because the only people that seemed to want to delete it without discussion were the PR company that is promoting the event. In fact, most of the information came out of the mouth of the founder of le bal. She has repeatedly stated most of the comments in various interviews to the UK newspaper Daily Telegraph, or in her AFB promotional releases. She has admitted that it is invitation only event, she has said that the girls come under a lot of negative media pressure for participating. She is quoted in the media as saying ‘no fat girls’! (daily telegraph 2005, 2007). Just because it was not sourced, does not mean that it is un-sourceable. As Wiki users are clear, the time for all the citations is problematic, and frankly too many citations of obvious things or unimportant text is also unseemly visually. Someone seeking information about this debutante knows that they are sort of faltering as an archaic activity (the word archaic was released to the USA last week in fact, in the primary press statement used to announce the ball at the end of this month). That is not me saying it, it is the media and the public. This is not me with an agenda against charity- but this is a commercial event posing as a charity. This is not me being negative, this is me reporting public negativity.

One comment asks what I would if I am re-instated. If you want me to explain every little edit I do then I will. I can re-type my additions and explain things until people or bored to tears. As far as the actual hotel de Crillon site, I am happy to see someone took my advice and it has been repaired to reflect the hotel. (it still needs work, IE the links- but I will let someone else do that). I do hope that a Wikipedia article can eventually be made that is a balanced encyclopedic informative edition of le bal so that users can inform themselves about it. I do not want to see another promotional page. If you want to unblock me, I will even do it for you and under your specific critical eye I will even be happy to fully site every juicy detail(along with a tedious explanation on the discussion page about every little detail(I think you can see I am good at that)).

I have no conflict of interest. Centrx is clearly the one defending the le bal people even at the expense of the public. My interest is the truth. And from personal interactions with the founder(of le bal) I know details that illustrate the broader picture of le bal. If parents are going to receive unexpected invitation from the fouhnder of le bal, shouldn’t they have some source on the net where they can get details? Shouldn’t they know that they have to sign a release waiver for their daughters images? Or would you prefer they wait and let their daughter dream about it for several months, and then in Paris, when she is trying on her gown in a couture studio, be surprised by the organizers with the release waiver and be forced to comply because otherwise their 16 year old will have an emotional meltdown. YES- that is how it happens. Isn’t it better on the internet on Wikipedia?

But you definitely do not have something to fear from me being aggressive. None of my previous actions were aggressive. And it is in your interest to have me as a registered user rather than just somebody anonymously submitting from various IP addresses. As an equal member of Wikipedia community though, I can not promise that I am going to accept a status quo in which big corporations or unscrupulous individuals are able to systematically squash true information and homogenize the truth, and flower up deceit and sell it to the public as if that’s acceptable. I hope you or anyone reconsiders and unblocks me. But if you do not, its yours and Wikipedia’s loss.

I’ll check back for the next 7 days and see what if anything is replied here, but if there is no unblock then you lost me. 119.42.96.119 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]