Chazella
Welcome!
edit
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Spaceduck
edit
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Spaceduck, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Spaceduck orpheum.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Spaceduck orpheum.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 18:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Spaceduck
edit Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Spaceduck, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
edit
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Spaceduck, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. andy (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chazella for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. andy (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Spaceduck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Your addition to File:Spaceduck orpheum.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Copyrighted images may only be used under specific conditions. You have introduced such an image in several different pages in violation of WP:FAIRUSE - please stop. GregJackP (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GregJackP (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. GregJackP (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Blanking a large section of an AfD discussion is not acceptable, particularly when the post shows the track listing for the BBC show you claims proves that "Spaceduck" exists, proves exactly the opposite. No such person performed on the show in question. GregJackP (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Chazella (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked because the administrator felt I was a Vandalism-only account. However, my history goes back 2 years with scores of well-intended contributions to Wikipedia. The fatal problem only arose 3 days ago when I submitted an article that failed notability. It was my first article, so I was not familiar with the criteria. Other editors interpreted my clumsiness as evidence of a troll and submitted multiple vandalism and hoax reports. Then on the discussion page, I thought a user had posted a blatant copyright violation (it was a torrent to illegal downloads of BBC copyrighted material) so I tagged it with COPYVIO as outlined in the help page. Unbeknownst to me (and others, evidently), the COPYVIO tag creates a large, obstrusive warning box over the page which masks the offending link and text. One user said I intentionally "blanked out" the entry. Multiple vandalism reports were submitted against me, to the point that I had to submit a Wikiquette request for moderation. Four users told the reviewing administrator that I was a troll and a vandal, and my account was blocked immediately. This unfortunate episode has been a combination of my inexperience at editing, my accusers' lack of good faith, and much misunderstanding on both sides of the aisle. But no deliberate vandalism has occured.
Decline reason:
Personally, I'd've gone with "disruptive editing" when blocking you indefinitely... and I'd've blocked you indefinitely too. The hoax article, the false reports of copyvios/vandalism against editors who agreed with deletion of the hoax, the forum shopping to find someone, anyone, who would block your enemy, the socking... It's all just very very Not Good. I'd suggest you go away and think about where this all went very very wrong for you, and why, and then come back here in a few months or so and ask for a {{secondchance}} ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 08:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
- For the record, I have also reviewed an unblock request received from this user, sent to unblock-en-l. I wish to endorse the above "Personally, I'd've gone with "disruptive editing" when blocking you indefinitely... and I'd've blocked you indefinitely too.", and therefore do not intend to unblock this user. I also support the invitation to "go away and think about where this all went very very wrong for you, and why, and then come back here in a few months or so and ask for a {{secondchance}}", and therefore I do not consider this block, at this stage at least, to be a permanent ban. Peter 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)