User talk:Computer40/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hawkeye75, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Hawkeye75! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Keem semi-protection expired

Hey User:Hawkeye75 - in response to your edit summary, looks like semi-protection expired 03:41 this morning (UTC). At first glance, 5 vandalisms soon followed (didn't check if any editor was autoconfirmed). dstone66 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in :-)

Hi Hawkeye75! I just wanted to check in and say hello to you! I wanted to express how happy it makes me that the AfD didn't drive you away from Wikipedia, and that you're still here and making good contributions. I want you to know that my talk page is always open to you; you're welcome to message me with questions, requests for help, or for input any time you need it. I'll be more than happy to give you a hand and help you with anything that you need! Keep up the contributions... I hope you continue to learn and grow and that you become a long-term and experienced editor here. Have a great rest of your day, and happy editing to you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Female pronoun

You referred to User:MorbidEntree as "her" twice. Why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And if you simply remove this without a satisfactory response, you may be blocked from editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know what gender it was lmao. You can't block someone for calling a user by the wrong gender. Hawkeye75 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it could be seen as harassment of another user if you meant to do it on purpose. That, along with your other violations, could possibly be grounds for a block (up to the admins though). -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 11)

Hello,

The 'elimination table' in the article about AGT season 11 does not seem necessary (one can see when contestants were eliminated in the 'Top 36 Acts' section), so it would make sense to remove it.

74.111.39.23 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I am blocking you for an additional three days for personal attacks. Twice, you referred to User:MorbidEntree as "her", obviously due to his declaration of being gay at his userpage. When asked for an explanation at this talk page, you responded by referring to him as "it" and typing "lmao".

Furthermore, in three weeks and a few hundred edits, you have managed to personally attack others, dole out advice to ten-year veteran editors and administrators, inappropriately warn others, ban half a dozen editors from your talk page for simply trying to give you guidance, ignore and dismiss plenty of helpful, friendly advice, edit war, and generally storm around being a thoroughly non-collegial bully. Consider a four-day block day block. I would not be surprised if another admin comes along and makes your block indefinite.

Now, I usually avoid WP:BEANS, but I want you back as a good editor, and I wish to help you avoid going in the wrong direction: Do not edit using an IP and do not create another account.

If you want to talk about things here with me and others, we can have a cordial discussion. If you do not, fine. You are welcome to come back in four days and continue to make constructive edits without any of this past nonsense. The community will simply not put up with this any longer. This is Wikipedia, where we are building an encyclopedia and we must our colleagues respectfully. This is not some kiddie fansite where you can attack others. The next time will certainly be a longer block or maybe even an indefinite block. Please learn from this.

Sincerely,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This absolutely absurd. I have never looked at MorbidEntree's user page before. I had absolutely no clue that he was gay. Gay or straight that had no change to my text. There is no indication in HIS username that he is a guy. And for the "it" controversy, I had no intentions of saying that. Maybe the grammar wasn't correct, but take for example "I had no idea what dog it was". In that instant, I would be referring to the dog as "it". That is the same case in that sentence. My intention were for the "it" to be about the gender not MorbidEntree. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

By default, people are not usually referred to as female. I believe you did so because you viewed his userpage and wished to insult him. Because of that, I have a hard time assuming good faith with your "it" "lmao" that followed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNL clearly states that you should avoid using masculine or feminine pronouns.Hawkeye75 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet you did just that? -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, and you called him "her". Please stop trying to defend that or tell me how it was all some big mistake. It was obvious and indefensible. Please do not insult my intelligence. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also why does it say that I can edit again on the 18th? You stated it would be a 4 day ban... Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The block expiry date has been corrected. It is now set to expire on the 14th. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, for the record, @Anna Frodesiak: I don't think that this user purposefully called me by a female pronoun because I'm gay. At the most, I'd accept that they looked at the picture of me in my infobox and made a joke about my hair being long. But even that is stretching it to me. I honestly think that it was most likely a mistake or something relatively innocent. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MorbidEntree. I really doubt that. He said "... I have never looked at MorbidEntree's user page before...." yet referred to you as "her". If he never saw it, he would have no reason to call you "her". If he did, he would see plainly that you are obviously male and would likely also have seen "James" and "gay". Calling you "her" doesn't add up any way you look at it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I'm not sure. Maybe I assume good faith a bit too much. If they're telling the truth about not looking at my userpage, then maybe their mind just defaults to random pronouns or something? I don't know. I'm just not all that sure that we should really hound on them for it too. Hell, it could literally just be an honest mistake on their part and us making a big deal about it is just making the situation worse. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Now Hawkeye75, I will not insult your intelligence. You are obviously smart. You've gotten the hang of Wikipedia faster than almost anyone I've ever seen, so I will get right to the point. You know perfectly well how you should be conducting yourself around here because you read talk pages. You know perfectly well what Wikipedia is and is not. I have reminded you of that above. What you may not be getting is who your colleagues are. They range from kids to ninety-year-olds, most with above average IQs. Many, many members of this fine community are smarter than we could ever hope to be. Literally, brain surgeons and rockets scientists edit here. Plus, they are all volunteers, giving their time in what they wish to be a nice atmosphere. Show them some respect! Join this community and be one of us. You can do that. Or, you can continue behaving like a little kid and get booted off, and this experience will be a failure in your life that you will remember always. Make the best choice for your life. It is worth it. I look forward to seeing you back transformed. In fact, if you can really explain to me that you totally understand, I will even unblock you at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop in here and add something. Hawkeye75, if I were you, I would not get too hung up on the the gender subject of Anna Frodesiak's post, as you appear to be focusing solely on that part of her message. (Although I do agree with her on the subject and she makes a valid point.) In my humble opinion, the part of Anna's message that you should really take to heart is everything that she said after "Futhermore". Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I will take the four day break and avoid people in the future that are uncivilized. @Anna Frodesiak: please review the five pillars of Wikipedia. You recently made a comment to me, I quote, "Or, you can continue behaving like a little kid and get booted off, and this experience will be a failure in your life that you will remember always.". This is against WP:Cooperation, that says "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages.". If I wanted to take things further, it could be seen as a personal attacks. You are an admin and you should know better. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: You can't really blame her for being a bit snappy when it comes to your past behaviour on here. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Again it says "No matter how frustrated you are". This is totally unacceptable that someone with power is willing to break the rules. And for the record, if I haven't apologized, I would like to now. I truly did not mean to insult you on being gay. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but it's not like she was abusing her power or anything. She was just wording it strongly for you because her past attempts have't gotten through. And for the gay thing: I don't really care if people make fun of me for it, I've developed a bit of a thick skin. But, thank you nevertheless for the apology, I really do appreciate it. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I see you're online and you haven't responded. This is totally unacceptable that you have done this. Why did you break WP:Cooperation? Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just so I understand, you find it totally unacceptable that I have been online without yet responding to your statement. You did not ask me a question nor ask me to respond.

Speaking of responses, you have yet to say why you referred to that editor as "she". And before you condemn others of terrible breaches of policy, you might also want to respond regarding your edit warring, banning countless editors from your talk page, inappropriately warning people, personal attacks, and of course let's not forget the incivility of which you accuse me.

I suggest you drop this, wait out your block, and get back to editing, as I said, "transformed". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: You still haven't answered my question, expect a section at administator's noticeboard soon. In the mean time please don't start a new section on my talk page per WP:NOBAN. Hawkeye75 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN expressly states that "banning" admins from posting on your talk page has very little effect. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 21:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: you seem inordinately fond of quoting Wikipedia guidelines for the benefit of vastly-experienced editors. See WP:Wikilawyering. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reading the whole article. You can grab a quote from that if you'd like. Hawkeye75 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think your question was "Why did you break WP:Cooperation?" when I said "...continue behaving like a little kid..." That was your question, right? Here's your answer: Because you have the potential to be a great editor, so I thought telling you straight was worth breaching WP:Cooperation for your benefit and that of this project.

I spent the time trying to help you understand that if you do not change your ways, you will not last at Wikipedia, and I think you would like to have the life success of a long wiki-career. It's so rewarding. Now I am not so sure you will last because I still see IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, MASTADON, and WIKILAWYERING.

I wish you'd just get back to building this encyclopedia. That's what we're here for, not conflict. My time/keystroke budget for trying to help you is spent. I tried. Sigh. Bring me to WP:AN if you like, but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that you violated Wikipedia:Civility in the "Social Media note" discussion that I started here (as just one example). As I said, you should really take to heart what Anna said in her message after "Furthermore..." That is all I have to say here. Thank you for your time. Wikicontributor12 (talk)

First off, that was more than 2 weeks ago. Second, that comment does not belong in this section, this section is only related to the block. Third, you already started a section on this topic on Anna's page 2 weeks ago so I have no idea why you are bringing it up here, again. You don't have anything to do with the block, so please don't post anymore if you don't have useful comments. Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion about this whole thing

Let's all get back to building the encyclopedia, including you, Hawkeye75, when your block expires. All this drama is giving me the vapours. Seriously, this is all a huge waste of resources. There's a lighthouse article I want to write. And Hawkeye75, why not start a lighthouse article yourself? They are notable, easy to source, practically impossible to delete, and we have plenty of images waiting for articles. Isn't that a better use of your energy than all this conflict and drama? So, please, how about just getting collegial, dropping the stick and getting into some rewarding article writing? It's more fun. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: By a "lighthouse article," do you mean a mainspace article about an actual lighthouse, or is this some sort of Wikipedia slang for something? (Sorry if that's an idiotic question, it's just not something I've seen anyone else suggest before). -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I mean real lighthouse. :) I started three before:

• Bicentennial Lighthouse
• Ferryland Head Light
• Point Prim Light Station

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GuardiansofTheGalaxyMissionBreakoutConceptArt.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GuardiansofTheGalaxyMissionBreakoutConceptArt.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@James Allison: Stop trying to annoy me buddy. You revert my edit for no reason, than come to my talk page and post a template message. My image is clearly better resolution and their is no reason for you to revert it. Do you have something personal against me, where whenever you see an edit from me you revert it? Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclear why you think James is trying to annoy you. Since User:James Allison tagged the file for F5 deletion, he is required to notify you. If you want the file to be kept, there are steps you can take. It seems that the resolution was decreased on purpose due to the fair use requirements. Why not ask somebody who knows about images. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It is extremely clear, since he has reverted 5 edits by me in the past day. This is probably because I asked him to stay away from my page due to WP:NOBAN. Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Or the user checked over your contributions because they saw one of them that was revert-worthy. I do that a lot with new users and IP users to see if they're vandals or just inexperienced. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't even look at the reverts, so you can't even comment on this. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you know he didn't? Assume everyone has seen everything. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Me too. I do a lot of that too with new users and IPs. It is what good, experienced editors ought to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, lower resolution is better for non-free images. The purpose is to just identify the subject in the infobox and nothing more. We do not want to provide a high-res copy that others can take and use for their own purposes, perhaps commercially. Search "resolution" at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and James used Twinke, which automatically notifies you with that template. Plus, notifying others when nominating their files/pages for deletion is considered a courtesy, not some sort of offence. Please AGF. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Worried

I put a lot of effort into trying to help you see the situation. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing the old behaviour at this talk page. Once unblocked, are you going to behave differently? For Wikipedia's sake, please, please don't make all of this effort spent be a waste. For your sake, please think about all of this in terms of outcomes. I know you want to continue to edit here happily. You must realize by now that if your edits continue to be this hostile, some admin will eventually come along and block you indefinitely. Nobody wants that. So please, be nice, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

File:New Hulk Coaster Logo.png

Thanks for uploading that smaller version. As File:New Hulk Coaster Logo.png is now redundant and unused, may I delete it? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Nice to see you making good edits, and nice to be working with you. Keep up the good work with the non-frees. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Misson Breakout Concept Art.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Misson Breakout Concept Art.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. (See section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
• It is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. (See section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MagicKingdomToontown.jpg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:MagicKingdomToontown.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Kingdom#1996-1997. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bro you wanna make me quit Wiki. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:MorbidEntree. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hawkeye75. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:ANI. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

Hi Hawkeye75 - I understand you may be slightly disparaged given the (currently) ongoing AN/I thread. I would like to offer some suggestions for moving forward, though please remember the AN/I thread has yet to conclude.

• Please consider changing your username - this can be done here and doesn't take that long. You will not "lose" any of the edits you've made. I understand this is a rather large ask, but number of editors have expressed concerns that your username is too close to Hawkeye7, and by voluntarily changing your username you will show your ability to listen and take advice.

• Agree not to make large or mildly controversial edits to any Wikipedia article before seeking consensus for the next couple of months - the majority of editors who have responded to the AN/I thread have suggested this would be a good idea. This will help the community judge your editing ability, and slowly regain the trust some editors may have lost.

• Agree to an offer of mentorship from an experienced editor - regardless of what happens going forward, having an editor you can turn to is very valuable

• Consider taking some time off of Wikipedia (maybe a couple of days?), to cool off and to help you re-analyse some of your comments. There's no doubt that some of your comments haven't been the most ideal (that being said, many editors have also been combative towards you)

The above are not personal judgements against yourself as a person, so please don't take these comments (or any comment you recieve on Wikipedia) to heart - you have the ability to become a constructive and respected editor. Please feel free to let me know what you think of the above suggestions, either here or by email. My talk page and email are always open to you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Computer40. You have new messages at Cameron11598's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

You know you're right on the edge of getting blocked, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For what? I haven't done anything. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For your general lack of clue at WP:ANEW and subsequent question to Sro23. I advised you to stay away from admin noticeboards as you don't have the experience to know what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Misguided commentary

If you felt absolutely compelled to say anything at all, it should have been something along the lines of "Hi Bbb23. I noticed that you blanked some content and am unsure why. I have a history of misquoting and misunderstanding guidelines and policies, so I was hoping that you might be able to provide some guidance". You finger-wagging at a respected editor with ALL CAPS edit summaries and a completely inaccurate message on their talk page, all while your competence is being questioned on an open AN/I, demonstrates a clear lack of judgment. You appear to approach editing as a battle, which will never end well because your attention should be drawn to growing and maintaining an encyclopedia, not trying to get the upper hand in petty squabbles. You really need to read through what editors are saying at the AN/I thread and attempt to understand why frustration is building with your editing style.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The are several paths that new(er) editors take when they start editing Wikipedia in earnest. The path you are currently on, with an emphasis on reverts and over-attention to admin matters, nearly always ends at an abrupt cliff above the Sea of Former Wikipedians. There are knowledgeable editors at the AN/I thread who are handing you a lot of AGF, so there's still time to choose a new path.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Don't undo an administrator at an administrator noticeboard again. Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I never knew that you were an administrator and I never knew that the editor was a sockpuppet. It was only good faith, since you shouldn't delete other user's comments on talk pages. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It would have taken you five seconds to go to User:Bbb23 and see he was an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good faith will carry you only so far. Based on what I've been reading about you, you're on the edge of being blocked for not being competent or being disruptive, or both. Figure out what's going on before you start reverting at administrative noticeboards or leaving messages on other editors' talk pages. It's not hard. If it is, then you shouldn't be acting as you are because you not experienced enough to do so. And I never called anyone a sock puppet, so don't put words in my mouth.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, but I don't normally check user's talk pages when I revert an edit. I'm trying to focus on editing articles instead of viewing other editors pages. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Then, for your own sake, stick to editing articles and stop looking at admin boards except to participate in the one ANI thread about you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As an outside observer I can't help but notice that you two appear to be (subtly) threatening Hawkeye75 as a person while at the same time avoiding the crux of his argument--> "since you shouldn't delete other user's comments on talk pages". Focusing on improving articles instead of dirt-searching people's userpages seems like a quite acceptable stance to me, so I don't understand the reasoning behind all the aggressivity I'm reading. As for Hawkeye75, only one thing to say: stick to your good faith, there's nothing wrong with it and it will carry you a long way. I'm writing this post with full understanding that I'll very likely be subjected to the same threatening, attacks and deletions that others received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.37.249 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Old Hulk Sign.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Old Hulk Sign.jpg, which you've attributed to http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/46633187.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note the terms at http://forums.orlandounited.com/help/terms "You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service" is not a licence for anyone else to re-use the content and unless it specified a Creative Commons by Attribution 4.0 it can't be assumed to be comparable to one. You either need to ask Scott walker to licence the image under a Creative Commons licence or see if you can find a freely licenced one somewhere else. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you can delete it. I thought that free license means that there is no copyright protection on a photo. I retrieved it from a blog. Hawkeye75 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Old Hulk Signage.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Old Hulk Signage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- GB fan 23:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

how? I've already uploaded photos and there have been no problems. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You've stepped into the non so clear waters of the non-free content criteria which probably causes more headaches than anything else on Wikipedia. If you want to use an image that is not public-domain or is not appropriately licenced then under certain circumstances the image can be used as non-free content.

The circumstances are dictated by the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and for the sake of simplicity I've copied the criteria here for you:

Non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
3. Minimal usage:
   1. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
   2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.
    2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Completing the rationale template, as you did when you uploaded the image, is the easiest way of addressing all the criteria. For a non-free image to be retained, all 10 of the criteria must be met and that is where the problems arise.

The issues raised with this image are to do with criteria #1 and #8.

Criterion #1 catches a lot of people out as the criteria is "no free image is available, or could be created". For the criterion to be correctly met you need to demonstrate that not only can you not locate a free image but that it's not possible to create one. So, for example, if this sign were still in use then it would be feasible for somebody - not necessarily you - to go and take a photograph of the sign and upload it under a free licence. As the sign is no longer in use that solution isn't possible but you could contact the person who took the image and ask them to release it under a free licence. If they decline or don't answer then you have grounds for saying that criterion #1 is met because you have made attempts to get a free image but they have been unsuccesful.

Demonstrating criterion #1 has been met is a technical exercise. Criterion #8 is a different matter altogether. #8 is about contextual significance. To consider if the criterion is met you need to ask yourself about this picture, what benefit does seeing what the entrance sign used to look like add to the article and what understanding is lost by it's absence? The concern raised about this image is that the answer to this question is "nothing". If the old sign is significant then it is expected that as well a the image, the significance is discussed in the article text.

Compliance with all 10 criteria is mandatory and is going to be different for each image, so the only other non-free image you've uploaded File:Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission, Breakout Concept Art.jpg does meet all 10 criteria, #1 because it doesn't yet exist so no free image can be created and #8 because it doesn't exist the image helps readers to visualise what the completed ride will look like. Note though, that once the ride has been constructed crtierion #1 will no longer be met and the image should then be deleted.

I know all of this sounds like a right royal pain in the backside and it is but that is the price for trying to keep the amount on non-free content to a minimum and it is a policy that has to be adhered to so there is no corner cutting allowed. If you want to upload non-free content the onus is on you to ensure adherence with the criteria. Some images are going to be easier to justify than others but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Nobody is criticising you for uploading the image but the questions are being asked, does the rationale given meet the criteria? You're welcome to say at the file talk page why you think the criteria are met, if you now think they are. All I've tried to do here is to expand on what the concerns are and why others don't think the rational given is sufficient. Nthep (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The plan for your future at Wikipedia

Please give your views here as soon as possible. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please search for and respond to the paragraph starting "I'm not clear on what you are saying, Hawkeye75"

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your user page

What, exactly, was your issue with the correction? [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing, it's my user page. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not your user page, it belongs to the community. See WP:UP#OWN. Right now, I cannot see any reason for that revert other than the same misguided obstinacy that has plagued your time here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:USERTALKBLOG, "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves". This never happened, and I was never notified. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, you've been asked by a few editors now not to wikilawyer and quote guidelines/essays as gospel. You're not required to be notified prior to an edit being made on your user page - it's happened to me before, where errors or what-not have been corrected or altered on my page, and I've corrected other users' pages too - they've been fine with it. You should really assume that the user helping you with the error on your user page was acting in good faith, which they clearly were. Zero^talk 10:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

F.Y.I., that same page says this:

"In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done."

--MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Block message

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Euryalus (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The reasons for this block are spelled out here, including what is required for a successful unblock. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, have mildly amended the close to indicate that it's more than reading up on policies (you have clearly already done that); it's also understanding their application. As a statement of the obvious, this is more easily developed through observation over time, rather than by trial and error on Noticeboards like ANI and ANEW. Either way: as above am happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Hey, I'm just getting really frustrated since James Allison is reverting all my improved edits. Take for example this edit right here. I spent so much time adding text to the article and I don't see how this is not an improvement. This is the edit I made that took me almost an hour. I don't see how it isn't an improvement, the updated ride has a new queue and ride system which I added in. Also he made this edit which doesn't make any sense either. The article is about a Disneyland attraction, so I changed the infobox from a "train infobox" to the "attraction infobox". The attraction infobox is used at the Walt Disney World Railroad, so I'm not sure why it isn't used at the Disneyland Railroad... I know I'm blocked but I just want to make Wikipedia better. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Computer40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have made a mistake. Going forward, I will never revert more than once in the span of 24 hours on an article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'll need to be a lot more detailed than that, given the ANI discussion. MER-C 11:42, 22 August 2016 (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.

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Computer40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for disrupting others from editing. It is mainly good faith, but I know that good faith can only take you so far. I believe that I have made helpful contributions to the encyclopedia such as this one, this one, this one and this one Going forward, I will give myself a 1RR Restriction (or an admin can give me it if necessary) and I will not use user talk pages, unless it is for serious issues (like IP Address Vandalism). Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the thread below: unblocking on the conditions that:

(a) you are subject to a voluntary 0RR;

(b) you make every effort to stay away from the editors and topics you have so far interacted with. There's millions of articles on WP - plenty of space to find new areas to edit in

(c) you completely avoid noticeboards like AN, ANI and so on. You've clearly read Wikipedia's policies, but your understanding of their application was a bit lacking. Take some considerable time to watch the policies in practice before offering advice on their use or contributing to noticeboard debates, and you should be fine.

As suggested below, these restrictions are not permanent but you will need a substantial record of good contributions and collaborative editing before they're lifted. And with that, welcome back to editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: You may want to consider @Anna Frodesiak:'s proposal at the ANI discussion. That you would be on a 0 revert restriction and that you keep all of your edits to the mainspace articles and their talk pages. More specifically that you won't edit any user talk pages nor will you make any edit to the Admin boards unless specifically notified to do so. Agreeing to these terms wouldn't guarantee an unblock but it may help your case. Ultimately it would be up to the reviewing admin.--Adam in MO Talk 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks

Hello Hawkeye75, I do believe your edits to Vancouver Canucks using WP:REPEATLINK were in good faith, however, I believe since you are new you may not fully understand some of the guidelines around it. Generally, we limit the use of double linked articles within an article to once in the lead (the top summary section), once in the body (the main section), and any time it appears in a list, table or infobox. However, if the article is significantly large enough (such as with the Canucks), repeated links with in the article are acceptable given that they are adequately spaced out. This prevents someone reading about the 2011 Stanley Run who then wants to read about the Bruins from having to search for the single link somewhere higher up in the thousands of words above it. Also, in long articles, links may be repeated again in separate sections (such as 1982 Stanley Cup run and the Team captains sections) for the ease of finding reasoning. So not all your edits were incorrect, but it was like finding a needle in a haystack to find some them. However, I urge you to try again with those guidelines in mind.

On a second critique, you do not need to pipe links to put the punctuation inside the link (just [[Henrik Sedin]], not [[Henrik Sedin|Henrik Sedin,]]) – it is completely unnecessary. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, as a little tip, if you have a link that should be plural in context, you can put the "s" outside of the brackets and it will automatically be added to the rest of the link. Here's an example since my explanation probably didn't make much sense: [[paper]]s → papers --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)