User talk:Chopin-Ate-Liszt!

***Please Note:

1.I am sharing this IP address with other people.

2.I am a former vandal of Wikipedia, though I have not made any malicious edits (i.e. vandalism) in 1 year and 11 months (as of Sept. 2007). My old vandalism account is user:kerrysfrench. I do not wish to be associated with this account or any of its sock puppets. For more information please see the "Block and Subsequent Unblock Request (granted)" section of my talk page.--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Historic Indian Coins (Paise).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Lucky 6.9 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the normal-sounding title and text which was, as I recall, "CHUNKY MONKEY!!!!" or something to that effect. - Lucky 6.9 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's "brother." :))

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

LOL! No sweat. Just give your sister a noogie for me. :) - Lucky 6.9 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Ok I reverted them. To revert articles, go to history tab and just click on the time and date of the version which is not vandalised and you will see that version. Then click edit page (You will see a warning like "You are editing a prior version...") and then write something like "revision" to edit summary and then click save. You can report vandals here Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Dont forget to warn them in their talk page first though. Thulean 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dupuis(Canadian science fiction editor and critic)[edit]

Hi Chopin. I object strenuously to your deletion of the above-noted article, and I will be re-creating it with a very strong request that you do not re-tag it for deletion.

John Dupuis did NOT create the article, I did. In part, I did so because there is another John Dupuis (a musician) listed in Wikipedia and there were numerous erroneous links to the WRONG John Dupuis from other articles in Wikipedia. I do know John, and I co-edited a science fiction anthology with him, which garnered two separate Aurora Awards for Canadian science fiction. John also won another Aurora on his own for a non-fiction article published in a literary journal. Considering how few people win any type of literary award, that should satisfy any possible criteria for notability necessary (and yes, I have serious reservations about the whole notability issue).

My article was a stub, but if you had done even the most cursory search on John Dupuis's name on the Internet, you would have found these references. Your job as an editor is to improve articles as necessary, and to delete them only as a last resort. You've created a lot of extra work for me now because you didn't do the requisite research in advance and rushed through a speedy deletion before I had the chance to object. I don't visit Wikipedia every day, and I didn't know of this deletion before it went through.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, but this is starting to happen all too frequently in Wikipedia. Please think things through a little bit before requesting speedy deletions in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerguy (talk • contribs) 08:14, March 6, 2007

Hector Berlioz-The great composer[edit]

Hi Chopin! I've realized chopin's favourite taste and musics. In Nipponese-wiki,the chopin's articles are fulfilled! Let's check it!--直ちゃん6　June 2007 (wed)

Block and subsequent Unblock request (granted)[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message is for user:NawlinWiki:

I am requesting a release from my current "indefinite ban." This is a rather long story for me to explain, and it spans several years. Okay Here's how it works:

I'm 16, and naturally, I have a lot of family members in the house.

I've been using Wiki since 2005. Initially I was sort of a spontaneous vandal, making frequent troll remarks on the Green Day page. My first account was user:Kerrysfrench. This account was also shared by my brother. I also created the account user:KerrysGerman with full intention of being a sock puppet account (I was the only one who used this). At the time (I believe this was in late 2005) I hoped to create several sock puppet accounts like "Kerrysenglish," "Kerrysspanish" etc. to keep vandalizing Wikipedia. Naturally I gave up after my attempts were thwarted several times. (vandalizing was a sort of 'sport' for my brother and I.)

Later, in early 2006, I created the account [[user:MonkeyCMonkeyDo], this time with the intention of creating legit edits (you'll notice many of the Kerrysfrench contributions are legit.) The temptation to vandalize pages was a bit too much for me, and I began vandalizing enough to be blocked on that account.

Finally, in late 2006, I created this account. This account was to be completely legitimate. It remains that way today. I ask of you to please review all of my edits, ALL of my contributions are completely legitimate. You will even find that I have many vandalism reversions, and user warnings as well.

My contributions are completely legitimate and useful. I have created each of the following pages with this account:

I have also created these articles on my older accounts:

Now I would like to explain precisely what I think has led to this fiasco with user:kerrysrussian. I think someone in my family (i.e. my brother) created this account to create vandalism, and that it should therefore be blocked.

However, my account appears to be held guilty by association.

In closing, I argue the statements placed on my page. ("It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Kerrysfrench. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.")

1. My edits do not justify the argument that I am a sock puppet, or a vandal 2. I am not technically a sockpuppet, because, although the same IP address I use created both accounts (mine and user:kerrysrussian, the same person did not create the accounts.

My request is as follows:

1. That my account be unblocked 2. That user:kerrysrussian remain blocked permanently 3. If possible, is there anyway to delete the user:kerrysfrench, user:kerrysgerman, and user:MonkeyCMonkeyDo accounts (the discussion pages could be archived, and user pages with the indefinite block notice)? I feel that this would discourage any future incidents altogether.

If you have any additional questions for me, please feel free to email me at Sketchphonics@yahoo.com, or leave a message here.

My sincerest apologies for this considerable waste of time and inconvenience. I remain today, a contributor to Wikipedia, and an enemy of vandalism. Like many who come to Wikipedia, I was fascinated with my ability to deface pages. That fascination has completely passed, and I look forward to redeeming myself.

--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I missed the above due to the use of the incorrect template. However, I still do not believe this block should be removed. You state the "temptation to vandalize pages was a bit too much" for you, and I see no proof the same will not be true in the future. - auburnpilot talk 04:40, 14 September 2007 (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).

Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet account of user:Kerrysfrench. This is completely false, and I demand evidence to prove that such a thing is true. 100% of my contributions to Wikipedia have been legitimate and helpful. There is not a single instance of vandalism in my contributions, and I don't understand why I am blocked.

Decline reason:

You have admitted above that you are the same person as Kerrysfrench. That makes this an abusive sockpuppet account. See WP:SOCK. — Yamla 19:46, 14 September 2007 (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.

Look, If I wanted to vandalize, blocking this account isn't going to stop me. I would simply create a new account and resume my efforts. Second of all, I have not made a single instance of vandalism in over a year. I don't see why I should be penalized for actions that took place in the past. They are irrelevant.

Finally and most importantly, I stress to you with great importance, that I am not a sockpuppet. This account was blocked for being a supposed sockpuppet account. However, it exhibits none of the evidence that such a thing has taken place. I am completely innocent of the crime I have been accused of.

I honestly believe I have every right to be unblocked. This account HAS NOT MADE ANY VANDALISM and yet- it is blocked. I encourage you to please look into this situation further. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This appears to be a good-faith user now. I can't imagine why we would want to block a reformed editor. The goal of blocks is to prevent damage the encyclopedia. What damage is being prevented? Blocks are not punishment.

Request handled by: ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of WP:SOCK to set up a new account in order to avoid a block placed on a previous account. Such was the case here. --Yamla 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, you just said my account is "an abusive sockpuppet account." Not only is it not a sockpuppet, it's not a abusive. Please point out where you see abuse in my edit contributions. If you can find 1 single instance, then I'll stop contesting the block. The account is not abusive at all. Where are you getting this from?!

Is there a certain time by which a blocked user is allowed to return to Wikipedia? Or am I supposed to be blocked until the day I die for vandalism I did as a stupid 13 year old kid? If someone were to find out that an administrator like you did vandalism when you were younger, does it suddenly negate all the contributions you have made since then?

I did not create this account to avoid a block. You'll notice that I created this account in October 2006, 7 months after User:kerrysfrench was banned. 7 months. Do you really think I sat and waited 7 months so I could sidestep that ban, and continue vandalizing?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sockpuppet in that it is another account. It is abusive in that you are using it to edit while another one of your accounts is blocked. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. A blocked user is permitted to return to the Wikipedia when their block is lifted. You are free to apply to WP:ARBCOM to request that you be allowed to return to editing. You will want to actually read WP:SOCK before you do so, however, as your continued claims that this is not a sockpuppet account and that it is not violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK are simply false. --Yamla 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will also notice the Wiki guidelines state: The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably.

Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but users must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. (Also see this page for information on how this affects other online communities.)

All of these statements support my position. I am contributing in an acceptable, harmless way, I am not trying to create disruption or supporting the position of another supposed sockpuppet account (In fact I support the ban on user:kerrysfrench and user:kerrysgerman).

And also- you called my account abusive, yet you fail to point out where I have been abusive.--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK states, "Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it." By definition, every single edit from this account is abusive as every single edit has been in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. --Yamla 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Fine. I have had it with this website. I have been doing nothing but contributing to this site in a positive manor for the last 1 year and 11 months. If all of my edits and contributions are in violation of Wiki policy, then please, revert every single one of them.

I am requesting the deletion of every article I have ever written because each one was created in violation of Wikipedia policy (which, even though wiki policies are supposed to be guidelines, and case sensitive, you seem so keen on following).

All I wanted to do was contribute to this website. That's it. And because of three vandalisms commited by my brother's account, I'm being banned. That's just fine. Just fine.

Would you exercise a little common sense? I'm not the guys you're after! I'm not a vandal! I'm not trying to deface the website, I'm trying to contribute!

--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not punitive. The editor is no longer a disruption so I don't see the point in the block. Don't we want people to reform? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much J.S. I appreciate your words of faith, and practical response to this whole issue. I'll do my best not to let anything like this come up again. If there's any way I can help you out with anything, just let me know.

P.S. Am I allowed to remove my "Sockuppet" and "Banned User" tags? --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding a ban notice[edit]

Hey JS, you recently unblocked my account from an indefinite block (which I sincerely appreciate). I was wondering if, now that I am unblocked, I am allowed to remove the "Known Sockpuppet" and the "Indefinitely blocked" notices from my user page. Many thanks, --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I would recommend leaving some kind of note about your previous use of that account. For the sake of transparency, ya-know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D[edit]

I searched for quite a while for a reference to that 1000 performer claim - and despite knowing that it was true, I came up blank... Thank you very much for the citation :-) Le the 11:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do add anything you can - I would quite like to get the article to FA status eventually, if they don't require a complete hack and slash to reduce the (IMO neccessary) length of the biography :-) Le the 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strangest message I've ever recieved[edit]

Tatyana Ali ! Will Smith: Happy Birthday: Flipsyde ! Like: Dirrty: Tatyana Ali: working with grammy rhythm: crazy in love: ain´t no other man: girl you know it´s true: Milli Vanilli: the productions have special grammy parts: a long instrumental part like in: come away with me: you know an eight grammy production: lyric system: design, colors: rhythm jazz: Rehab: the instruments of Rehab too: rock part like in: girl you know it´s true: no naked: no kissing scence: Call me when you are sober: girl: girl you know it´s true !

George Bush autograph[edit]

Hi there. I'm responding you your comment left on the George H.W. Bush talk page regarding President Bush's signature. If you would like to help out on that, please feel free to do so. Thanks! --Happyme22 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:The boondocks juxtaposition.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The boondocks juxtaposition.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your username[edit]

Hi, I was wondering what your username implies... :) do you like Chopin and not Liszt? just wondering :) mathwhiz 29 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Unequibryologic reasoning[edit]

I have nominated Unequibryologic reasoning, an article that 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/Unequibryologic reasoning. 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. Jfire (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you[edit]

The article you created, Unequibryologic_reasoning maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unequibryologic_reasoning.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Mvislogo.gif)[edit]

You've uploaded File:Mvislogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The boondocks juxtaposition.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The boondocks juxtaposition.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]