Inopibus
November 2007
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Catiline. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jasgrider 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to the sandbox kid
Your privilege to publish any of my writing has been revoked. Now go to your room and stand in the corner.
Wikipedia Legal Threat Policy
Your recent edits to Talk:Catiline could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Exxolon 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: from my talk page
Are you saying that the text on the talk page is copyrighted? Please explain your concerns in the section that I created (link) for this incident on the admins' noticeboard. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded - please explain your concerns there and we will try to help or find someone who can. Exxolon 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Stalker.2.4nov07.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stalker.2.4nov07.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you can explain the goings-on on Talk:Catiline?
Could you possibly explain the dispute going on on Talk:Catiline? I am rather confused by the talk page in its present state; since accusations of copyright infringement and stalking have been made, I'd like to get to the bottom of this. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm being harrassed by an annoymous user who is putting out alerts through your system in order to attact some fellow harrassers. Its an on going campaign. There was no good reason for censoring my link to an article I wrote on the Catiline conspiracy. And that I don't own my contributions here is of course completely false. You must think wikipedia owns them, since either you own them or I own them (law of excluded middle)
But I will resist using logic because it doesn't seem to be a strong point for you publication. It should at some point occur to you that an anonymous user has demanded that anonymous contributions be prohibited to the Catiline article. On the other hand, my yname is plastered all over denouncing me as "disruptive" and "blocked" while nothing is said of whoever it was who gave out my personal info. And whereas I was anonymous, I must wonder how it is that they know "E. H. Campbell" was using a UMT IP. These peole have threatened to murder me in the past, now because of your "Privacy Policy", which evidently signifies that I may be publically attacked by anonymous users, has breached my personal security. I am not pleased.
E. H. Campbell, Inopibus Press: Seattle http://inopibuspressseattle.blogspot.com inopibus@gmail.com Inopibus 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have been threatened, then you should take it up with law enforcement. As to your identity, you have yourself associated Inopibus with your name; it did not take much deduction to link that with the IP edits when you weren't logged in.
- Wikipedia does not own the content posted here (with the exception of some small elements such as logos and trademarks which the Wikimedia Foundation owns) but the terms of use state that by posting anything here you own, you are granting an irrevocable license. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"You claim that this IP address is "outing" you; but you have repeatedly claimed to be this person on this very talk page."
I have not repeatedly or ever claimed to be this person. Inopibus 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have been threatened, then you should take it up with law enforcement. As to your identity, you have yourself associated Inopibus with your name; it did not take much deduction to link that with the IP edits when you weren't logged in.
Its not really a question as to whether or not one could deduce who was behind this IP it is a question as to WHY? anyone should feel the need to publish what amounts to an altert that I was editing Catiline followed by instant undo's with remarks like "rm link spam" "unexpalined rv Edward Campbell aka .... aka..." By what appears to be a single use account which hit my page moments before making unfounded accusations.
This link is not spam: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/11/03/discontents3nov07.pdf Its a very well researched document. Which has not been refuted by your "editors." Wikipedia has a problem with who writes not with what was written. For instance calling Catiline a "criminal" was called "laughably POV" but wikipedia assers Charels manson was "is a career criminal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson In the last analysis whoever is responsible for the Catiline wiki has done a very poor job and is calling "disruptive" very logical arguments with well substantiated research. But what they really mean by disruptive is the collapse of their very weak theories. Obviously their minds were thrown into chaos when their theory came crashing down. But if wiki is also a hideout for organized harassment, I should distance my self from that. Inopibus 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)