User talk:Stemoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Do you have a citation to support that children and virgins, as opposed to men and the married are sent to the Ganges? If so, post it at the nom and I will change my vote to oppose. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahendra Reddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fijian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Law date of birth[edit]

Hello Stemoc. I wanted to leave you a message regarding the Katrina Law article. There appears to be some contention regarding her date of birth, and unfortunately we cannot accept IMDB, Twitter, or Facebook links as a source for this detail. I have redacted the date of birth for the time being, until we can locate a proper citation as published by a reliable third party. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生:, Her birth date is correct and is verified by her on twitter herself, the only thing wrong is her birth year, her IMDB is wrong, she is born in 1977, not 1985..I did not add the 1985 birth year, someone else did but her birth month of September 30th is you actually removed a verified source, please add it back in or trolls will now keep adding the fake birth month and year.--Stemoc 22:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stemoc thank you for following up with me. IMDb, Twitter, and Facebook are not acceptable as sources for WP:BLP articles. Is there a reliable source available which confirms her date of birth? If not, policy dictates that we leave this blank until such a source can be provided. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DanaSnyder.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanaSnyder.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war[edit]


Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."

Since Russavia is banned, and since he is trolling, you are trolling if you take complete responsibility for his edits.

He will soon be reported to WP:3RR and I assume be blocked.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of your involvement to get Russavia banned in the first place so pardon me if I ignore your comments, last i checked, Jimbo's talk page was the "UNITED NATIONS" of wikipedia where even banned editors were allowed to speak..who are you to say differently and i was following the rules, I ALLOWED banned editors comments because the comment was only noting his intentions, NOT attacking anyone on the page, so its not I who violated any rules but those who reverted me..--Stemoc 03:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tracy-Ann Obermann image[edit]

I'm looking at that "OTRS" image of Tracey on Commons and I'm not sure that it has been through the OTRS queue... Tabercil (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

it was passed by an OTRS agent (MDann52) so i figured it must have..also, that user uploaded atleast 3 copyvios (straight from tracy's website) and claimed to own the rights for them, i got them all deleted so he added another image to his flickr account so that he can add the image again to the from copyvios' to flickrwashing to fake OTRS permission and then some OTRS agent who didn't bother to look at the uploader's history allows it...--Stemoc 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have an account on Commons, you can chime in on that here as background. Tabercil (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Natabua High School[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Natabua High School, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Stemoc, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Natabua High School has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

technically, this is FIJI, its impossible to find info online (internet only existed here after 2005) and you have to go with what you have..since you pretty much "culled" the article to a crappy 5 line stub, its not worth keeping...if i had to make this article with practically nothing in it, i would have created this along time ago...--Stemoc 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Setareki Tawake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kadavu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore edits[edit]

What exactly are you up to here? [1][2][3][4][5] Looks suspiciously like WP:HOUNDING. Dwpaul Talk 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He is violating our policy by replacing the image with his crop so he is doing a WP:SELFPROMOTION, its not HOUNDING, image name should be descriptive of the location or the people in it, he is intentionally uploading images just because he was to self promote himself, we do not allow this ..he has been doing this for a while, even tried to get images on commons renamed to his name in the image title..--Stemoc 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have a complaint against the editor, bring it up at WP:AN/I. Do not follow them around and persistently revert all of their edits. The edits you reverted are not vandalism, and even if you think they violate a policy, you will need to achieve some consensus on this question before you start reverting the user's edits on sight. Dwpaul Talk 02:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
See the last image he changed on Neil Druckmann's article, this is the original image, this is his addition, this IMO is vandalism to "self promote" himself as a photographer, I won't go to AN/I, this should be solved by admins by blocking him..I'll revert any other he has changed..--Stemoc 02:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please produce a link to a Wikipedia policy that says the contributor of a photograph that is their own work cannot use a file name for that photograph that includes the photographer's name. Unless you can do so, stop interfering with the photographer's edits immediately. Dwpaul Talk 02:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
In addition, I see no effort on your part to communicate with the editor you are persistently reverting on their Talk page, nor with any admin about blocking them because of your belief that they are violating a policy. So, since no communication is taking place, I can only assume what you are really attempting to do is provoke them into edit warring with you, and provocation is not an appropriate strategy if you are trying to improve the project. Dwpaul Talk 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
He already gets an attribution in the image itself and well as having his own commons category, but to try to change the image title is not allowed, this policy is on commons, not wikipedia as images are stored there , the policy in question is commons:Commons:File_naming#Namingthis one and quote, "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray", not the NAME of the author, we do not allow that unless the author is a known professional photographer, not a flickr-hack .. and even then for limited images ..I'm not provoking the editor, he is intentionally 'vandalizing' via POV pushing, he has been doing this for years and has been ignored for reasons unknown, Honestly the only option would be to get his flickr feed blacklisted on commons and request a ban there..cause enwiki rarely does anything to people like him..Abusing wikipedia to push your own agenda is one of the biggest violations IMO..I urge you to restore my reversion or i will revert them again, you refuse to see it as a violation, but it is a violation via commons wikimedia--Stemoc 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The file names continue to be descriptive of their subjects even with the photographer's name appended. I see no policy at the link you provided which the photographer has clearly violated. There is nothing written at that link that prohibits or even discourages the inclusion of the photographer's name, contrary to your assertion above. If you think some action needs to be taken, you need to bring it up at WP:AN/I or seek dispute resolution, but you do not need to follow the user around and revert all their edits because you do not like what they are doing. If you continue, I will bring your actions up at WP:AN/I. Understood? Dwpaul Talk 02:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Descriptive how?, all it tells us who the person is and whose pic it is..not the location where the image was taken, and its NOT descriptive the image name has to be DESCRIPTIVE, not the name of the photographer, when you intentionally removed other better cropped images and try to replace them with your own "poor" version of them, its vandalism, the user has a COI, he is pushing his own name and we DO NOT allow that on any Wikimedia sites, even enwiki, he may very well be a paid editor if you see his flickr stream working for the republican party and using wikipedia, sorry abusing Wikipedia to promote oneself is a violation. A commons admin did ask him this in March, he never replied cause he never does talking to him is futile....take it to AN/I, afterall thats where everything that can't be solved an will never be solved ends up..--Stemoc 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, if you think that a policy is being violated, you should be actively seeking consensus, administrator action or both. If you fail to do either one, and simply revert the editor's contributions on sight without any effort to communicate with them or to correct their behavior, you are engaging in harassment and are likely to eventually find yourself the subject of administrative action. Dwpaul Talk 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, i no longer involve myself with the wikipolitics of this site, I'm not going to keep running to mommy (AN/I) like some two year old, anyone with half a brain can see that the user is violating atleast one of our policies and is getting away with it...I have a long history with wikipedia and cross-wiki vandalism and spamming and even i know this is a combination of both i said, per our policies (commons), he has been given attribution which is the requirement of his "cc-by-sa" licence, there is no requirement for the user to push his own agenda to fuel his personal interests cause that would be violation of wikipedia's highest rule, the Terms of Use in relation to this ...still don't see it as a violation?--Stemoc 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pio Tikoduadua, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St John’s College, Fijian and Public Service Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan[edit]

Perhaps you consider a distorted frowning face to be a good representation of a person, others don't. If you wish to revert, do give a better reason than "get glasses please". Also note that condescension is consider an act of incivility per WP:CIVIL. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

frowning?, i have the same number of lines on my forehead when i smile..yes, get glasses because you honestly don't know the difference between a good image and a poor one...the one you chose is a VERY POOR IMAGE..get consensus next time you change the image or else it will be reverted just as fast...--Stemoc 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
My reason has been given per Wikipedia guideline, I would suggest trying to insult my visual judgement is not productive. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest not insulting mine and quote "(no point using an image that doesn't look like him)" when the image clearly looks like him..and also, your answer is not really a good one cause anyone can SEE that that image is the BEST representation of the actor available..--Stemoc 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
My reason is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, so far yours apparently not. If you want to set yourself up as "anyone", it's up to you, I have no interest in that. You can easily Google images of Jamie Dornan, and the Wikipedia one is the oddest, and least like him. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well by that reasoning, the one you chose will be the ODDEST of them all..I know the guidelines, its apparently you who does NOT know the meaning of "natural and appropriate visual representation", please, I urge you to learn about it because its quite silly for me to discuss an image related issue with someone who isn't capable of understanding "visual representation" , we are WIKIPEDIA, not GETTY or you can see above, I go through this type of situations a LOT more than you ever will...this is Dornan on IMDb, this is your image of Dornan and this is mine, now tell me, which one looks the "LEAST" like Dornan?..--Stemoc 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yours. (See how easy it is to make an assertion? It is not a productive discussion if all you can do is to assert the superiority of your judgement. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your judgement is wrong.) Hzh (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that you have violated the WP:3RR rule. Any further attempt to revert may result in a block. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

reverting VANDALISM is not a 3RR violation, and please stop talking on my page, take it to the other talk page..i don't like unnecessary talk here.. ..--Stemoc 17:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what constitute vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. Hzh (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)