The Tricameral Dominion

Last night I had a peculiar dream in which I was accidentally divided into a disembodied essence that existed on three separate planes of existence simultaneously. It was like some poor shadow of The Trinity. I was separated yet impossibly singular.  I knew this phenomenon was called The Tricameral Dominion in the dream, and it was a “permanent” state despite the fact that through my transfiguration, the boundary of time as I had formerly understood it was exceeded and not to be considered ever again save as a memory of some pitiful incarnation. For a brief glimpse, I understood all things as a singular thought, rather than a long, linear parade of descended motives and motions. I was infinite and unsearchable, but strangely simultaneous. In a sense — if it is fair to use that term given its casual sensual couching — I was my own reflection, twice over, a baffling union of trilateral independence, possessed of a perfectly harmonious will, desire and order. A trillion perfections all moving the same direction and at the same speed.

Matter seemed laughable, almost a punch line, and space itself appeared as but a playground that I could spin and warp at whim. I perceived galaxies and electrons equally, and against what I had become, they were closer to each other in scale than they were to me. It was as if the entire Universe were but a passing thought, subject to any definition I chose to impose upon it.

And most importantly, I could slow down — infinitesimally, almost devoid of any motion  — to perceive those who were not as I was. I could see material life in the hazards of its narrowness, its obscene commonness, the stench of its rot, the decay of its dull reason, the un-saving blindness it absurdly hoped might pass for knowledge; yet I was neither bored nor indignant at the uncountable orders of inferiority of this delicate, material realm.

In their bacterial scale and great fragility — my former prison — I found them rare and endangered. And I cared for them deeply, despite their microbial worth.  It was as if they were the most cherished of germs.

Then I woke up.

Banned from Wikipedia — When Small People Get Too Much Power

AfD nomination of Victoria Celestine

I have nominated Victoria Celestine, an article 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/Victoria Celestine. 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group.

See Wikipedia:Business’ FAQ and Wikipedia: Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy. You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.

Blueboy96 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: “your reason here”


Decline reason: “To address your block, and only the reasons for it: There would be no problem with you using your own name, David Jetre, as a username. That’s our one exception to the username rule. Your current one suggests promotional use. There are a multitude of ways to create a new account even when we’ve blocked account creation, as we have here; you would be better off editing under your own name. However at the same time I would strongly recommend that you read our policy on when people are notable enough for an article, the notability policy in general, and specifically the conflict of interest policy and our guidelines on writing about yourself first. Then decide if you want to do this. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)”

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


Here is my follow up to this hypocrite…

Wikipedia / Blueboy96 / Jrp / To whom it must eventually concern:

Per mutliple emails to Blueboy96 and Jrp, respectively, I have deconstructed the allegations hereinabove and cited 1) User Name Policy and 2) Conflict of Interest rules and regulations. I have also dealt with false charge of self-promotion.

  1. User Name Violation — “Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem.” As stated in emails to Blueboy96, Jetrefilm has been my username since 1999 — seven years before my company was established. Additionally, since we’re being legalistic, my company’s name is not Jetrefilm, that is simply a short-hand name for it. I have used Jetrefilm for years, logging in from everything to non-film related forums, news groups, blogs and most recently Wikipedia.
  2. Conflict of Interest — “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.” Gentlemen, a “fact” is not some inherently self-referencing, mystical ‘conflict of interest’ pregnant with self-advertisement. I have provided no promotional tone or tactic, I have made no call to action, solicited sales, or made any statement about myself, or my work, that is not immediately verifiable by anyone. It takes the same amount of time and effort to confirm facts submitted by me as it does someone who submitted them anonymously from Calcutta, India. If it is a FACT — and gentlemen, despite your legalisms, these are facts — the authorship is irrelevant. I believe I am more qualified than most to comment and confirm the date of my birth than you, or strangers your fellow administrators would strangely affirm as being more reliable on the topic than me.
  3. Claims of “Promotion” — “Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates. Examples of these types of material include: a) Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links); b) Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages; c) Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.”
  1. With regard to links, I have submitted nothing more than the same permitted links every other entry is entitled. NOT ONE site to which I have linked is offering anything. Nothing for sale. Nothing for rent. Nothing. I’ve asked for nothing on your site, nor have I asked for anything on any link I’ve offered.
  2. I have no “obscure…personal page(s)” to which I am pointing. I have no such page.
  3. As an artist my entry is designed to factually cite those works I have created and am creating. Every other filmmaker is allowed on Wikipedia, hundreds of them. You literally have tens of thousands of entries on fictional character, movie companies, artists, actors and filmmakers, and the entertainment industry as a whole. The idea that someone cannot write an objective article about themselves, subject to fair handed scrutiny as anyone else, is a myth.


I am a career artist, illustrator, writer and filmmaker. I made a movie. I have two more in development, another four after that. Now, this may be hard for you to understand — this may bruise your ego — but Wikipedia is not part of our advertising strategy, or our promotions, or anything related to anything I do.

You are supposed to be a database of facts. I have offered you detailed facts about me, my work and my career. Yet, somehow, there is some medieval belief that if I, David Jetre, tell you I am a filmmaker, that I am trying to — what, exactly? Sell you an online tickets? But if someone else tells you I am a filmmaker, it’s okay.

Now we can put this to rest right now. If you are interested in objective, verifiable facts — like you claim to be — then reinstate my articles. Otherwise, you owe me an explanation as to why you will not. Then we go to mediation.

If, however, it is your bizarre belief that the one person who is to be summarily excluded, in perpetuity, from the democracy of free press and all it has to say about David Jetre is, ironically, me, David Jetre, then your entire database is based on second-hand news, vague recollections, nameless opinions, propaganda and best guesses. If this is the case, then Wikipedia is really about creating a consensual hearsay club arbitrated by faceless administrators who decided what will pass for “true” and what will pass for “false.”

Guys, if that’s what you’re about then I don’t want any part of you. Your credibility rightfully lies in tatters.

Until this incident I loved Wikipedia, and I literally, without exaggeration, kept a browser window open to your site all the time. I had no idea you censored authors and artists from commenting on their work, great or small. This fact horrifies me.

I took the time to read your endless rules….virtually all of them…and it took a very, very, very long time. Your policies are at best guidelines, and most subject to broad interpretation.

Your allegations are wrong — flat wrong. Brazenly wrong.

You say I broke your guidelines. I vehemently disagree. I read them. Maybe you should to. Show me everyone I broke, chapter and verse.

You have three options available:

1) Re-instate my articles; 2) Cite verbatim whatever policy you claim I violated; or 3) We move to arbitration.

I want to resolve this matter amicably, but I have an extraordinarily short fuse with regard to propaganda mills who censor facts and occurrences they feel challenge their particularly worldview.

Let’s resolve this.

David Jetre 940-368-3626


Their ridiculous reply…

A note on credibility: You wrote, “As stated in emails to Blueboy96, Jetrefilm has been my username since 1999 — seven years before my company was established.” But Wikipedia was created in 2001. How did you swing a Wikipedia user name two years before that?

Regarding “As an artist my entry is designed to factually cite those works I have created and am creating. Every other filmmaker is allowed on Wikipedia, hundreds of them. You literally have tens of thousands of entries on fictional character, movie companies, artists, actors and filmmakers, and the entertainment industry as a whole. The idea that someone cannot write an objective article about themselves, subject to fair handed scrutiny as anyone else, is a myth.”: These hundreds of filmmakers presumably didn’t write the articles. Do you imagine that Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee and Ridley Scott sat down and wrote articles about themselves because they couldn’t count on anyone else to do it? The way you take the stance that you’ve been cruelly singled out is ingenuous. Hundreds of articles people do write about themselves get deleted every single day.

As for “facts and occurrences [sic] they feel challenge their particularly [sic] worldview”: What exactly is it that you wrote in any of your articles that you think challenged anyone’s worldview? Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with anyone finding anything objectionable in the articles?

As for Victoria Celestine: you wrote an article—regardless of how objectively—about a character in a film that hasn’t been released yet.

See Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Elements_of_fiction.—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


My lovely reply to this toad…

TO: Largoplazo

Wow. Where to begin.

Okay, guys, if you aren’t even going to read my responses…

1) “How did you swing a Wikipedia user name two years before that?”

I didn’t claim I used Jetrefilm as an account name on Wikipedia. I said I have had it since 1999 and used it “…most recently on Wikipedia.” If you cannot read my responses, please refrain from answering them and kindly provide me someone who will.

2) “Do you imagine that Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee and Ridley Scott sat down and wrote articles about themselves because they couldn’t count on anyone else to do it?”

Well, you know, I always assumed they would have the freedom to if they wanted. Clearly not the case.

3) “What exactly is it that you wrote in any of your articles that you think challenged anyone’s worldview?”

How about the fact <I> wrote it myself instead of having to count on ‘someone else to do it.’ That doesn’t seem to be Wikipedia’s worldview, or yours.

4) The problem with the article with Victoria Celestine stems from the fact the film hasn’t been release yet?

Your double-standard here is astounding.

Here is the cast of James Cameron’s “Avatar” — a film which has not been released:

Cast: Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, “a paralyzed former marine who undergoes an experiment to exist as an avatar, another version of himself… an alien – 10 feet (three meters) tall and blue.”[6] Sully is able to be part of the alien world in his avatar, a genetically engineered biological body that can be remotely operated by a human consciousness.[7] Director James Cameron cast the Australian actor after searching the world for promising young actors, preferring relative unknowns to keep the budget down. Worthington auditioned twice early in development,[8] and he has signed on for possible sequels.[5] Zoë Saldaña as an alien Jake initially betrays, but they both fall in love.[5] The character will be entirely computer generated.[9] Saldaña has also signed on for sequels.[5] Sigourney Weaver as Grace, a botanist who mentors Jake Sully.[10] Weaver dyed her hair red for the part.[11] Her character was named Shipley at one point.[12] The character reminded Weaver of Cameron himself, being “very driven and very idealistic”.[13] Michelle Rodriguez as an ex-marine pilot. Cameron had desired to work with Rodriguez since he had seen her in Girlfight (2000).[14] Giovanni Ribisi as Selfridge, a passive-aggressive character.[15] Stephen Lang as a Marine Corps colonel. Lang had auditioned for a role in Cameron’s Aliens (1986) that he did not get, but the director remembered Lang and cast him into Avatar.[14] Joel David Moore as an anthropologist who studies plant and nature life like Weaver’s character.[16] Matt Gerald as the main villain.[17] Actors Wes Studi, C.C.H. Pounder, Laz Alonso, and Peter Mensah are also in the film.[16] Actor Michael Biehn entered talks with Cameron in March 2007 for a possible role in the film,[18] but his involvement is not confirmed.

Guys, don’t worry about it.

Having spoken with my attorney on this matter, I’ve realized I owe Wikipedia an apology.

Initially, I was angry at you for not living up to your high standards, unaware all the time you were living down to them. We spoke at length about your organization, its method and the many controversies surrounding it.

I was under the impression Wikipedia was a bold union of the scientific method and the noblest standards of journalism. I believed foolishly — I can admit that now — that Wikipedia believed in verification. I recognize now Wikipedia doesn’t bother with such trivialities. I guess during all those thousands of hours on your site, I should have looked up “Wikipedia.” Oh well, now I know.

Immediately, you arbitrarily deleted my entries. You didn’t flag them, or warn me, or suspend them with a line-by-line list of infractions. No, you just deleted my entries and then deleted my account.

Even now, you defend this decision because apparently, I am not important enough to warrant an entry. Okay.

Your deliberate deletion of my entries and my account is at best an insult, and at worst ostracizing.


I offered you provable facts from the source, which you promptly deemed unreliable and erased. By your actions, Wikipedia has declared its contempt for facts as much as for the fountainhead from which they flow. According to you: why get fresh water from the fount when you can get some mud downstream?

I submitted your database clear, concise, accurate details of me, my work and my projects present and future. I did this to build a reliable foundation upon which anyone visiting your site could build upon. I never once asked or assumed some all-controlling exclusivity to those entries which dealt with me or my work. But for the entry to have any merit – any merit – it must be true.

Truth does not seem to be high on Wikipedia’s list of priorities either.

Further, your claims that I violated your policies are suspect at best. I see now that’s how you prefer your data as well. And whereas you banned me as some self-promoting salesman, you brazenly continue to willfully permit others the very functions you denied me.

What the left hand gives the right hand takes away.

For example, below is a link to James Cameron’s entry on your site:

From this site, several upcoming projects are linked. Here is only one example:

James Cameron’s Avatar is not finished, yet your page has an entire premise, cast and production notes available to anyone visiting your site. It is clear James Cameron’s films, be they in production or unannounced, are permitted on Wikipedia where mine are not. Mystically, these entries are not deemed as “promotional” by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia seems to lose little sleep over hypocrisy as well.


I have no real way of punishing Wikipedia for living far below the expectations of those who use it. Learning what I have about Wikipedia, I can certainly say I will no longer be using your outdated and unreliable database.

You falsely accused me of advertising and self-promotion. You then deleted the entries without even a blush. Your all-consuming fear, this radical phobia that a human being cannot write an orderly, fair, true and objective summary of themselves borders on superstition. Western reason seems too sharp for you guys. You’d be better off with a witchdoctor.

Obviously, I care too much for my brand to have it associated with yours. I simply don’t have the time to educate you about the doctrine of fairness.

Unfortunately I can’t stop others from posting things about me on your site, but that’s their prerogative.

In my opinion: if you won’t listen to the guy who wrote the book when asking about its plot, purpose and meaning – really, what good are you?

And please understand, I am not remotely angry with your company any longer. I now know what you are now, how you operate, what you value and what you don’t.

Thus, you’re demoted to irrelevant.

David Jetre


Retrieved from “;

As this exchange reveals, one must be very careful to properly qualify people to whom the power of censorship is given. They duplicity and hypocrisy of Wikipedia reveals the organization to be tyrannical and illogical and speaks to the very real problem of untrained personnel being given too much power.

Academically speaking, they are on par with the National Enquirer.