User talk:Dman41689: Difference between revisions
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
:I actually wasn't sure which account you wanted to keep as the "master." This account is older but has a smaller edit history (07:13, 23 October 2011, 5485 edits), while the other one ({{User|Redsky89}}) is younger but seemed to be used more actively and had more extensive edits (16:58, 9 February 2012, 16088 edits). I assumed that you wanted to retain Redsky89 for whatever reason, hence I indefinitely blocked this one and left Redsky at 2 weeks. Normally, it'd be the other way around (i.e., we retain the older account), but either way, ''one'' of these accounts will need to remain indefinitely blocked per policy. That said, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to decide which one you wish to keep using for future edits, and any other administrator is free to swap the blocks/expiries accordingly, too. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 01:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
:I actually wasn't sure which account you wanted to keep as the "master." This account is older but has a smaller edit history (07:13, 23 October 2011, 5485 edits), while the other one ({{User|Redsky89}}) is younger but seemed to be used more actively and had more extensive edits (16:58, 9 February 2012, 16088 edits). I assumed that you wanted to retain Redsky89 for whatever reason, hence I indefinitely blocked this one and left Redsky at 2 weeks. Normally, it'd be the other way around (i.e., we retain the older account), but either way, ''one'' of these accounts will need to remain indefinitely blocked per policy. That said, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to decide which one you wish to keep using for future edits, and any other administrator is free to swap the blocks/expiries accordingly, too. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 01:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== File:Criss Angel Believe show.jpg listed for discussion == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Criss Angel Believe show.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Criss Angel Believe show.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:19, 4 March 2016
2012 in film discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "2012 in film". Thank you. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 16:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just in case you quit watching this discussion after seeing my last posting there and Wavehunter's response. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
False positive
I accidentally reverted it as I neglected the fact that he was adding additional nationality information to the article's table; thought he was replacing "Actor" for "Ameican". Sorry for the inconvenience. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 07:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Martin Johnson
I don't understand what is going on with Martin's page. What is everyone's insistence that these photos from 4 years ago be kept on his page????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohankohli86 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- why wouldn't we use them they are images of him aren't they? on Wikipedia we use photos through out a persons career to to tell the story about their life. it doesn't matter when they are taken. it doesn't have to be the most recent photo just a photo in general that show him. he hasn't changed much since the photos were taken so I don't see why you keep removing it. other editors have all agreed that they are ok the page isn't all about you its a community of people working together. also those are the only free photos we have of him. if you want i will keep an eye out for more recent free images but do not remove the images again. because you have been warned and could be blocked from editing if you continue to edit war. Dman41689 (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded copyright-approved photos before that have been taken down. I will upload it again, please let me know if you have any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.25.70 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- if the images you uploaded before were taken down its because they were copyrighted, if you upload any images make sure they are proven to be under a free license otherwise they will be deleted. Dman41689 (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have uploaded an approved image, approval by Dan Gillan - dangillan@gmail.com. Please let me know if we are all set. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohankohli86 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Long John Baldry photo
Could you be more precise as to why the non-free promotional tag is not appropriate for this image? DoubleBlue (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- because their is now a free image in the commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Long_John_Baldry_1972.jpg Dman41689 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't see the pic when I checked the page. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- because their is now a free image in the commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Long_John_Baldry_1972.jpg Dman41689 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Rudy Minarcin
Thanks for replace image. MusiCitizen (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- no problem I'm happy to help. Dman41689 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Free image?
Any chance you can locate one for recently deceased Bud Adams? Surely there must be some alternative to the non-free one that was added upon the occasion of his death.. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- sure I uploaded one i'm sure I found one from 1964 that should be good. Dman41689 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Image
Would something like this be fair game for us to use? – Connormah (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- yes their is no copyright on the front or back of the photo it is free to use. Dman41689 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Additionally... any chance you can look into one for Red Kelly? I'm not so sure, so I thought I'd leave it to you... thanks.. – Connormah (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- yes their is no copyright on the front or back of the photo it is free to use. Dman41689 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
References
Hi, thanks for your recent contributions to Deaths in 2014. The editors there have agreed that the most appropriate format for references is <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ron-Penndorf-popular-West-Berkeley-blogger-dies-5744714.php Ron Penndorf, popular West Berkeley blogger, dies at 76]</ref>, that is url + space + title. Could you use this format for any future contributions? Thanks for your support. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
File:The-Replacements.jpg listed for deletion
Just FYI, it wasn't me who removed the Speedy notice, and if you check the talk page you will see that I do not oppose the deletion as I have already found a free image. Robman94 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- oh I know someone else did sorry you got notified twice about it. Dman41689 (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Moxie Raia
Could I possibly get you opinion on the AfD in question I noticed you had help edit the article. Valoem talk contrib 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
A question
Hi Dman, I notice you have lots of experience in image use, and I hope I can get your input. I like to upload the image on this webpage [1] for use in the infobox of This Article. Reading the site's copyright policy [2] I am not sure if I can. Would the template {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-NEA}} cover this situation? Thank you in advance. Bammesk (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
How about the picture on this webpage [3] for This Article?! Bammesk (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- you can't use either of them you need permission from the person who took the photo that website got permission to use them and do not own the copyright. Dman41689 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- It makes sense, thanks. Bammesk (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- you can't use either of them you need permission from the person who took the photo that website got permission to use them and do not own the copyright. Dman41689 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Mary Treen
If at all possible, could you upload a headshot for the actress Mary Treen (1907-1989) Wikipedia page. She has bare none.
Margaret Early
If you can, would you be able to upload a picture for the actress Margaret Early's Wikipedia page. There is nothing there for her. Please and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Maid in Retierment (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Marcus Mojo for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcus Mojo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Mojo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup of births and deaths
Please don't accuse me of "vandelizing" [sic] when I am acting in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- what guidelines? there is no rule as to how many people can be put on the page and when you remove over 3,000 on a page its vandalism you are also edit waring Dman41689 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed on the project Talk pages many times. I have never removed 3000 entries - that is nonsense. Deb (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. slakr\ talk / 02:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Dman41689 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to be unblocked is because I was mistaken for being a sock puppet because I came to the defense of another editor who was involved in an edit war. I made the mistake of reporting the other editor to the administrators instead of trying to resolve it on the articles talk page. I understand why they assumed that I was a sock puppet because I can to the defense of someone who came to my defense recently when one of my articles was nominated for deletion. I should of minded my own business but I did what I thought was right but I understand that the problem should've been dealt with differently and I am sorry for any confusion. Dman41689 (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have extensively examined the histories of this account and the account Redsky89, and the evidence goes way beyond what you suggest. There are abundant connections between the two accounts going back for years, to an extent that leaves no room for reasonable doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2015 (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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Dman41689 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
ok I will do this right this time. I'm sorry, I was sock puppeting I use both this account and redsky89 I let my ego get the best of me and i tried to get away with it. I am sorry for even trying I was just mad that I saw an editor was removing a lot of stuff odd a page and I thought that if another editor reverted them they would stop and I thought reporting them would help but I was wrong on all parts, I should've just took it to a dispute board. It was stupid of me to even try and act like a victim of mistaken identity in my last request I thought that if I admitted to sock puppetry no one would take me serious as an editor and I am sure you probably wont now. but if you look through my history on both accounts you can see that I have made many useful edits to many pages and have never been blocked before or had any major problems on Wikipedia. If you are willing to give me a second chance to use both accounts again I will promise to be a better editor on both accounts. I will only use the Redsky89 for the Days of the Year pages and I will only use this account for the years in film and for adding photos to pages. I understand that what I did was wrong and its probably hard for anyone to trust me after this but I am serious about this I will do anything to be able to use both of my accounts again. If there is a way to link my accounts together so that people know that they are used by the same person, please let me know and I will do it, so that I will not be able to sock puppet again in the future. I understand that I need to be blocked for a certain amount of time on my other account and I will take that as a punishment and learn from it but I ask that you reduce the block on this account, for whatever amount of time you feel is appropriate, so I can use it again in the future. I am a man of my word and if you give me a second chance I will keep my promise thank you for your time. Dman41689 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't unblock sockpuppets. Your main account is blocked for 2 weeks, you can use it after the block on it expires. Max Semenik (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2015 (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.
- I actually wasn't sure which account you wanted to keep as the "master." This account is older but has a smaller edit history (07:13, 23 October 2011, 5485 edits), while the other one (Redsky89 (talk · contribs)) is younger but seemed to be used more actively and had more extensive edits (16:58, 9 February 2012, 16088 edits). I assumed that you wanted to retain Redsky89 for whatever reason, hence I indefinitely blocked this one and left Redsky at 2 weeks. Normally, it'd be the other way around (i.e., we retain the older account), but either way, one of these accounts will need to remain indefinitely blocked per policy. That said, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to decide which one you wish to keep using for future edits, and any other administrator is free to swap the blocks/expiries accordingly, too. --slakr\ talk / 01:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)