User talk:Tony Spike

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2017

Your addition to Novar plc has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

and as i have replied in kind on YOUR talk page

i feel you were wrong to do this, i feel the way you have approached this is plain wrong, and i will be seeking a way to either make you a better admin or to have you removed pending the outcome of this subject, but thank you for the info all the same

regards Tony Spike (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Katie^talk 02:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• This edit to User talk:Diannaa is clearly a legal threat. If you make an unambiguous retraction here, I have no objection if any administrator chooses to unblock. Katie^talk 02:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

well since i was editing the response at the time of blocking (to tone it down as ...as is CLEARLY stated in the actual edit summary) you have no idea WHAT my final edit would have been, and the reason why i should be unblocked kinda speaks for itself .....you were all too hasty

but no ....i wasn't threatening legal action at all ......in fact i go so far as to state this, i was just stating my legal rights to seek action if given an unjust ban weather legally or through the wiki itself ....this is not a crime and i find it hard to believe that this kind of thing does not fall under free speech rights, if you want this retracting than i have no problems doing so, i was just making my feelings on the matter a little clearer

but since i in fact go on to state that this was not a personal slight against deanna and i have no wish to take it that far, i really dont think that i need to retract anything in retrospect, their is AMPLE evidence that i am trying to stay reasonable ALREADY

now as stated ....i am currently persuing the option of a slander claim against Nan on the Tamil wiki for saying i had been racist to him and banning me their for being racist when all i had done was revert my user page ...... i havent actually filed one just seeking advice...and i find it ludicrous that you would count this under actually doing so

but again i say .....i didnt have time to edit my post properly when you hit the block button, so you have no idea what my final draft would have said and i was planning to take this part out since i felt it was too threatening, i only stated it in the first place to highlight the problems i have had with overgeneralised and oversensitive admins before, not to sound like an ass

at the end of the day i feel my requests was not unreasonable despite the polemic, and i do feel the actions of Diannaa towards me were unjust and i was just letting them know that i wasnt above seeking a way to have their powers removed if they were found to abusing those powers arbitrarily, and that i am not one to be shy about this issue because of the above stated Nan case

i think deanna handled their side of things poorly and they needed to know truthfully, and i think it is plainly obvious that i meant no disrespect

i will retract what i have said, edit it out of my message, thats all i have to say on the matter Tony Spike (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1) Your claim now that you were not threatening legal action is at odds with "... i am FULLY READY to not only report you to the proper authority's but i will personally see to it that your admin privileges are removed (via legal action if necessary)..."

2) You have no rights here whatsoever, certainly no free speech rights - see WP:Free Speech, "The First Amendment forbids government censorship of expression; it does not prevent a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how".

Now, you say "i will retract what i have said, edit it out of my message", which is good, but we need a specific withdrawal of the legal threat (which you clearly did make).

If you wish to remain an editor here for any length of time, you need to seriously tone down the aggressive way you respond to volunteers who are just enforcing Wikipedia's policies. You must not add any copyrighted material to Wikipedia, not even for one second - you are certainly not allowed to add it first and then adjust it later. Copyright violation is serious (in law as well as in Wikipedia policy), and it must be removed as soon as it is discovered - we simply can not wait for the final draft.

For you to be unblocked, I'd want to see some understanding of the importance of copyright policy and its upholding, and the importance of civil interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2017 (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.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tony Spike (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18435 was submitted on Jun 05, 2017 03:11:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

yeah no disrespect dude ...but just a few points i need to inform you of, because you seem to have made a few mistakes in your comment, chief among them is that you appear to be labouring under the impression that that this has anything to do with the article i wrote when it does not, it concerns what i wrote on someones talk page

now ...here are the points i have to answer yours, please understand i mean no disrespect ..im just not going to lie to you, i dont feel i should have to, and i see it as more respectful to be truthful thats just the way it is

1) the comment isn't at odds with what i said AT ALL, simply put i didn't say i was GOING TO do it in any way shape or form, and since your personal feelings onto what actually constitutes a legal threat dont come into play with regards that statement what i said was not in odds at all

now having said all of that ...i will acquiesce that the tone and placement of the term "via legal action if necessary" might have made it SEEM that i was threatening legal action, i understand how it could be taken, it also might not be a nice thing to say either and i might be in the wrong according to wikipedia rules, but thats not the point to my argument, the point is that i plain didn't threaten anything more than going to wikipedia and asking for a moderator review, i didn't threaten him with anything more than basically a slap on the wrist

but an actual legal threat would have A) involved me saying SPECIFICALLY that i was GOING to take legal action, and B) involved me saying that i had started to, ....and regardless of how you personally feel about this fact the fact that i have apologised for my little slip of the tongue mitigates any of those feelings anyway

2) you know what they say about assumptions dont you?, you have assumed that i am an American, but as i am NOT the first amendment dosnt really apply to me, i DO however have a freedom of speech under the UK Human Rights Act witch last i checked DOES cover INTERNATIONAL CHARITY'S and INTERNET FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ....and ....put short it pretty much protects me and ensures that i am allowed to speak my mind whenever i want, as long as said expression isn't Illegal, obscene (like child porn for example) or defamatory to anyone, and NOTHING i said was/could be constituted as ANY of those things,

now this law might not stop you from removing things that you dont like, but it sure as hell dosnt stop me having any rights whatsoever, regardless of your feelings on the matter, you might be a charity organisation and able to control what goes on your own website, but dont you EVER make the assumption that you are exempt from human rights laws of ANY country, or that i have no rights ANYWHERE ....because (and i say this with no ego just so you know) you will find that you are just plain wrong and to deny them is against the law

3) despite the PERCEIVED legal threat, i was actually quite courteous to deanna, you might think i need to tone down my aggressiveness .....i think i was pretty nice, i said that i wasn't trying to attack them personally, i explained my problem, and i even made a polite request and made a suggestion on how i felt that this volunteer could have better approached removing my article with regards to ..for lack of a better word ..."fairness" towards newbies

i didn't expect a warning for my efforts regardless of how serious you treat copywrite laws and i expressed that, as is my RIGHT and PRIVALAGE to do so, and in a decent way to boot so how this constitutes as "aggressive" is beyond me, perceived legal threats doth not aggressiveness make ....and i challenge you to find anywhere where it does

4) moderators may be volunteers and just doing their jobs....but that dosnt mean they are a law unto themselves, i am ALLOWED to depute you and your methods, and allowed to request a minor change of policy as i did, and i am ALLOWED to say if i think you are wrong ......did you know that i actually raised the issue of moderators being assholes in a commons survey once?, again it is my right and privilege to do so and to do anything in my power to protect myself against ANY moderator that abuses their power ....see UK Human Rights for more info

i agree i have to show mods respect but its a two way street, DO NOT ever make the mistake of thinking that i have to sit and take being treated like a piece of shit just because a moderator said so ....because that will simply not happen, and i will protect ANYONE that comes to me and says it is happening to them too

now do not get me wrong, that hasn't happened here ..and i admit i overreacted a bit, but i dont feel that taking someones newbie status into consideration when they have edited their first article is too much to ask for, and i certainly reserve my right to tell someone that they have been too harsh by giving me a warning instead of just explaining things nicely

5) i am entitled to edit an article in any style that i choose to, and i happen to choose to edit articles by slowly adding information over time, it is not only beyond your power to stop this (because it is ridiculous to think that you personally have power over my editing style ....or the way i grow as an editor whilst i learn) but it is also contrary to my personal freedom of expression

i make small edits ....i dont feel confident enough to edit everything in one go yet, and that is the end of the subject

all YOU can control is the content, not the process ...you might not be able to afford to keep copyrighted articles whilst the final revision comes in but .....and here is the OTHER major problem i have with your statement, when i said that i hadn't made my final edit before i was silenced, i was talking about what i wrote to deanna on his talk page and NOT the article that was removed (witch if you had even bothered to read what i said you would see i didn't have a problem with) i fail to see how copywrite has any bearing AT ALL on what i said to him since what i wrote to him came completely out of my own mouth and constitutes fair use

i get what you are trying to tell me but since i didn't have a problem with his removal of the article AT ALL or his reasons for doing so, and i ALREADY have a KEEN understanding of copywrite law thanks to my job, and since i have already expressed this i dont see how i need to learn anything of the sort ....seems to be kind of moot

6) eeer ...excuse me ..but specific withdrawal of what exactly? i mean aside from the fact that i feel i didn't threaten anything in the first place, i also feel that since i have already said that i didn't mean to say it that this counts as a withdrawal, i dont get how much more specific you want me be? the fact that i have said that i will just just delete the part where i mentioned i could do it should be enough of a statement and i simply dont get how that dosnt suffice in the slightest

again sorry if any of this offends you its not personal, but i dont want to lower myself or my personal standards by bullshitting you,

Tony Spike (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)