User talk:Bull-Doser

Banned

I hope to be unbanned, and I will never do original research on Wikipedia ever again. If I would do sources, I would photograph it or find an Internet source. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I will never do original research on Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please set me an unban date on November 1??? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I will do on Wikipedia is just edit articles with their own sources and of course pictures that belong to their respective pages. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too little too late for that. Since 2006, editors (including some no longer active on Wikipedia) have asked you, sometimes even begging you, to stop your disruptive editing and you have ignored them all. When you were blocked in December 2011, you've said that you would always provide sources; that commitment was never respected. You've even managed to boycott the thread that was about you this week on the Administrators Noticeboard of Incidents even after an administrator urged you to participate. Now that you have been blocked and banned, you're telling us that you want to collaborate, using the same type of promise that you used the last time you were blocked ????????

I wish you well in your future endeavors. Farine (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create a new account and end up discontinuing this account? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should unblock me on November 3 instead. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will still collaborate, but no longer doing original research. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop doing disruptive editing to Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to focus more on car articles, still for editing, as well as company articles. I will always respect Wikipedia for the dimensions. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unbanned has been brought up on the WP:ANI page. Please give the editors who participated in the discussion time to respond (some will most likely come here to discuss this with you). After a decision is reached I or another administrator will inform you of the outcome. Thank you for your patience. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term misuse. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban has been changed to a block... as this appears to be closer to the community's current consensus. However, you're unblock is still being discussed. And as I said above I'll inform you once a final decision has been made. Thank you for your patience. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Dozer, humor me if you will. Please explain what original research is in your own words, and what you intend to do if unblocked, to insure you do not insert it into articles in the future. I can't promise you anything, but I have a feeling that you are better off if you can articulate this in a way that will instill confidence in your future editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved new unblock request (apparently added on Nov 4 as a reply to Dennis) to a new section. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need Wikipedia yet, but I'll tell you later in the week. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get unblocked, you should explain how Wikipedia benefits from your editing, not the other way around; see "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" for inspiration

Tijfo098 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2012 (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).

Bull-Doser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am ready to officially return to Wikipedia editing having been blocked for about nearly a week. I will not post anything on original research, just referenced, and also, I will continue posting my images once again. Bull-Doser (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I'm ready to return" is not a reason to unblock you. You will not be unblocked unless you answer Dennis Brown's questions, and address the block evasion concerns. Max Semenik (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2012 (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.

I have also started the Carrefour De La Pointe category yesterday on the List of small shopping centres in Montreal page. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the edit you made by evading your block with an IP address that User:Elen of the Roads finally blocked. [1]. Also Dennis Brown asked you a question. Therefore, you're supposed to correspond with Dennis Brown directly and he is watching your talk page. This unblock request is unlikely to be successful. Especially that there isn't anything particularly convincing in it that you will indeed stop disrupting Wikipedia and start communicating with the other editors. Farine (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farine, with respect, I recommend that you take a step away from this situation and let it be handled by uninvolved editors. Plenty of people have an eye on it now and are watching the situation carefully so issues like block evasion are not going to go unnoticed. Conversely, considering your history with BD your presence might be a hindrance to effective communication. Sædon^talk 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Bull-Doser has resolved editing as an unregistered user under the IP address 76.65.146.6. This is a very bad move.

A SPI case has been opened, a moderator will block the IP address once the case has been processed and Bull-Doser is putting himself in an even harder position to be readmitted to the community.

If Bull-Doser wants the possibility to edit again on Wikipedia, he should corresponds using his original Bull-Doser account. Block evasion is not the way to go . These alternative accounts and IP addresses will all be blocked. Farine (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.65.146.6 has no edits, and no deleted edits. The IP doesn't even appear to be in use on any machine, ie: reserved but not in use. The SPI page that would be used, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bull-Dozer is a red link so has never been opened, so what exactly are you talking about? You are making pretty strong accusations without substantiation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is 76.65.146.69 (not 76.65.146.6). My mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bull-Doser

And you don't need to get your attitude on me Dennis. I only forgot a number. That's all. Ever heard of WP:AGF? It's the second time this week that you're attempting to make me look like the bad guy and make Bull-Doser look like the victim.

As I said before, just unblock Bull-Doser if you feel his block is so unjustified. After all, all the people that you've accused of complaining on Bull-Doser's talk page for years were complaining just for the thrill of complaining. All these people (with no connection to each other) had no good reason whatsoever to complain on Bull-Doser's talk page.

And of course, you wouldn't have been able to access the SPI case. You spelled his name Bull-Dozer, when his name is Bull-Doser. Farine (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bull-doser, just keeps on digging a hole for hisself. This whole affair is becoming rather tragicomic. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. But lucky for him, he has Dennis Brown on his side. Farine (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farine, I suggest you step away from this page and disengage with both Bull-Doser and Dennis Brown. Saedon has suggested the same (in the previous section on this page). If you continue, I will propose a formal interaction ban between you and Bull-Doser. Your behavior here has gone well beyond the bounds of discussion and has veered into hounding. There are several administrators actively watching this page (I am one of them), and we are aware of the situation; your presence is not helping. Horologium (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium, it's obvious by your response here as well as the one you left on my talk page earlier today that you don't like me and have a grudge against me. But very well, I will step away from this page. But Dennis Brown's answer above was inappropriate and I needed to let him know. Farine (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; I have no grudge against you. In fact, I had never encountered you prior to the discussion you started on ANI, and my interaction with you has been limited to our interaction here (and the note I dropped on your talk page, about edits to this page). It would take a lot more than that to develop a dislike for another editor. Horologium (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit while blocked

That means you can't edit from home as an IP, you can't go to your friend's house and edit from there, you can't go into an internet cafe and edit from there, you can't ask your sister to edit for you..... Do you get my drift. If you edit wikipedia again, without discussing the reasons for your block and seeing if you can get a resolution to your problem editing, you are likely to stay blocked forever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request

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).

Bull-Doser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked already and I am ready to return to editing. Original research is when you put words on your own thru Wikipedia with no references or sources. Also, I will never edit from an IP while blocked. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the SPI report, and your replies below, it doesn't appear you understand what the issue is, thus I have no choice but to refuse an unblock at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 4 November 2012 (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.

I'm definitely still not ready, so I don't need Wikipedia as of yet. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will tell you when I will be unblocked. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser, do you not understand why you were blocked? Moreover, do you not understand that you are not the one in control of this situation? Your statement "I will tell you when I will be unblocked" is not going to sit well with any administrator with the ability to make that happen for you. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:22, 5 November 2012 (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).

Bull-Doser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to not contribute original research to almost all Wikipedia articles again. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We wish for you not to, as well. Unfortunately, unless you can show us some evidence of how you plan to keep yourself from falling back into that trap, we have no way to know if you're able to fulfill your wish and therefore we can't unblock you. Please answer the questions you've been asked about how you understand original research, so we have something to work with regarding whether you're competent to edit again. Another unblock request showing no understanding may end with you losing access to this talk page, rather than you being unblocked - we need you to show us progress, not just show us you repeating the same things again and again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2012 (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.

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).

Bull-Doser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.
2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.
3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.
4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.
5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.
6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.
7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.
8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.
9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.
10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.
11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with this edit that caused my block.

Decline reason:

Although I believe you're genuine, and close, the attempts to get someone to edit Wikipedia by proxy below are concerning. At this point, I will suggest The Standard Offer. Withdraw completely from Wikipedia for 3 months. Do not create another account, and do not even make even minor changes anonymously. During that time, reflect on the reasons for your block, and consider what you have suggested above very carefully: can you and will you stick to it? How will you react if challenged in the future? Perhaps even go and work on another Wikimedia project, such as the Simple English Wikipedia. After 3 months, return here and place an unblock request that convinces the community that you are indeed ready to return to the project. Note: any WP:EVADE during those 3 months will reset the clock for another 3 months (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 20 November 2012 (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.

And yeah, I've got other plans apart from editing Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin

Based on observations on this page, it is my opinion that unblocking is not in the best interest of Wikipedia due to a lack of comprehension. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I agree. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Coffee blocked me, not User:Dennis Brown. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee blocked you, and the admins User:MaxSem, User:fluffernutter, User:Elen of the Roads and myself have indicated serious concerns about unblocking you by either declining or publicly expressing concerns. That is the point. It will be up to a different admin to review this request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reviewing should be aware of this, which Bull-Doser removed. I don't think he intended villainy by it, I think he just doesn't have a great deal of WP:CLUE --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally removed the "reviewed" part; however I reverted it because I thought it was a block request never reviewed before, and regards of this, my original User:Take Me Higher account is also banned. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I wasn't meant to VANDALIZE this page. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser, there seems to be a misunderstanding. By "removed", Elen of the Roads wasn't referring about the reviewed unblock template. She was instead referring to these edits that you removed [2][3]. It is entirely within your right to remove these edits. But I think what Elen was saying is that these two edits should be taken into consideration by the next reviewing administrator. Farine (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed them particularly because my original account is blocked too, and yet proved irrelevant. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser, please don't send in unblock requests to the UTRS system while you have unreviewed unblock requests open here. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if... (re: Unblock request)

I am somewhat reluctant to make this proposal, because I am still not entirely certain that Bull-Doser fully comprehends the reasons behind his block, but what we were to allow him to create a sandbox page within his user space to make proposed edits that other users could review and then, if they are appropriate, make the edits for him? If Bull-Doser can show, via the use of this sandbox, that he is progressing as an editor and actually does understand the reasons behind his block - allowing that he may understand, but hasn't been able to put his understanding it quite the right terms, in writing - perhaps then we can hold a discussion about removing his block. Call it a sort of mentoring, if you will, but with the person being mentored not having full access to the encyclopedia. I would be willing to volunteer to watch this sandbox and offer advice and constructive criticism. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 17:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I showed the link of my last-warning edit that led to my block, even though it was WP:OR. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a sandbox, if you are blocked - this is the only page the user can edit. Therefore, Strikerforce, are you effectively proposing {{2nd chance}}? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(hashtag)BrainFart Yes, I knew that. Goodness.. yes, that is, essentially, what I'm proposing. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the panel shift of KLLY Bakersfield, California from hot adult contemporary (per the station's parent Buckley, they're still hot AC) to contemporary hit radio, KLLY is still the only hot AC in Bakersfield. Can someone edit the page for me? KKXX is the top 40 in Bakersfield. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station Reporting Panels (Mediabase, BDS Or Station Parent)

When it comes to Mediabase, Nielsen BDS, or the station's parent company on reports, I'd pick either of them. For example, KBFB in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas is a rhythmic contemporary per Mediabase reports, but per Nielsen BDS, they're urban. And why not?? They've been a rhythmic for years despite now the only rhythmic in the DFW. KMEL in San Francisco reports as urban per Nielsen BDS, but they report as rhythmic contemporary per KMEL's parent Mediabase. CJMX-FM was moved to the Canadian hot AC panel per Mediabase & BDS, but still, they're AC per the station's parent. KZPT in Kansas City was never a hot AC despite reporting as AC per the station's parent and as hot AC per Mediabase & Nielsen BDS -- Bull-Doser (talk)

File:Chevrolet Venture A&W Laval.JPG

What!!!???

BD, as long as you keep uploading pictures of quality this unbelievably low I find it hard to imagine what you can add to the project (uploaded December 4, 2012). You have been admonished with some regularity to only upload usable pictures, the first such request stemming from February 2006 and you haven't changed a thing in that area (well, fewer snow-covered cars but everything else remains as it were). This gives me serious misgivings as to your ability to adjust your behaviour in other problem areas. Seriously. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a contributor on Wikimedia Commons so I don't really know how things work over there. But Bull-Doser's attempt to prevent the image from being deleted by removing the "Nomination for deletion" template (despite the message telling to not remove it) as well as his edit summary that overtly promotes the use of such poor quality image on Wikipedia are both concerning. [4] There is this file talk page where Bull-Doser encourages other editors to post this horrible image on Wikipedia, even after two moderators (Ellen of the Roads and BWilkins) already told him that block evasion through other people is not permitted. [5]

Actions like this make it unlikely that Bull-Doser will ever be back on Wikipedia someday. If anything, the Wiki Commons account may end up getting blocked as well. Clearly, he hasn't learned anything from the past notices/warnings nor his current block.

Bull-Doser may mean well. But the comprehension and the competence just isn't there. Farine (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from Bull-Doser in Wikimedia Commons

Due to the File:Chevrolet Venture A&W Laval.JPG image that has been deleted, the comments from Bull-Doser on Wikimedia Commons are no longer available. Since I had save the pages on my computer before the image got deleted, I have reproduced them below because I feel it is important that the next reviewing administrators are aware of these violations of Wikipedia and our sister website. Farine (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote from Bull-Doser asking other editors to go insert the image on the Wikipedia article (retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Chevrolet_Venture_A%26W_Laval.JPG)

While I'm Blocked On My Anglo Wikipedia...
You should all post it on the A&W Canada page. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And here is a print screen of the diff on Wikimedia Commons showing Bull-Doser removing the "nomination for deletion" template and his edit summary that again encourages others to go put the bad quality image on Wikipedia. (retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chevrolet_Venture_A%26W_Laval.JPG&diff=84708202&oldid=84690929) File:Bull Doser A&W image on Wiki Commons.xcf

More bad quality images on Wikimedia Commons (all uploaded in December 2012)

[6][7] [8] [9][10][11]
Farine (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:'12 Ferrari FF ('12 MIAS) Image shows wrong type of Ferrari

Hello, the image isn't a '12 Ferrari FF ('12 MIAS). This is a 599 GTB. Robert --91.51.151.46 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert. None of the images on the article you are referring to were uploaded by Bull-Doser. One of the images was uploaded by User:IFCAR and the other one by User:Mr.choppers. Please redirect your message to these users. Regards. Farine (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Unblock Request After IFCAR Departure

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).

Bull-Doser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've spent my three months outside the Anglo Wikipedia while blocked, and had followed the guidelines of Bwilkins.
2=The car picture uploader IFCAR is no longer active, and he hadn't been uploading car pictures since last July and in addition, had been inactive on Wikipedia since last November.
3=I will be the official successor to IFCAR for car picture articles
4=As what was caused before, I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with this edit that caused my block.

Decline reason:

You have acknowledged that you have breached the conditions set forth in the standard offer. Tiderolls 05:54, 10 February 2013 (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.

To the new reviewing administrator (as per Bwilkins's conditions)

Administrator Bwilkins specifically said on November 20, 2012 that Bull-Doser should withdraw from Wikipedia for a period of 3 months. That means that Bull-Doser should not be making an unblock request before February 20, 2013. Furthermore, Bwilkins also clearly said that any attempt of block evasion during the 3 months would reset the clock for another 3 month. Since Bull-Doser commited block evasion on December 10, 2012 by telling editors on Wikimedia Commons that while he's blocked on Wikipedia they should all post his image File:Chevrolet Venture A&W Laval.JPG on the A&W (Canada) article, the block was effectively resetted on that date. Therefore, in order to comply with Bwilkins's requirements, Bull-Doser's unblock request above as well as any potential ones made before March 10, 2013 should all be voided. Thank you. Farine (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I only had block evasion on November 3, and I've spent my three-month hiatus on the Anglo Wikipedia already! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, wait. I did commit block evasion on December 10 last year. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're admitting this, why is your unblock template still live? Tiderolls 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I though I hadn't rebooted the block for three months. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "3=I will be the official successor to IFCAR for car picture articles" - that seems to me to be showing a lack of clue about how Wikipedia works. There are no official successors to anyone, no official image uploaders of any sort, and nobody officially in charge of any categories of articles or images. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally

Your self admitted block evasion resets clock on the standard offer to 10 March. Tiderolls 05:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Bull-Doser, you have uploaded over the past month or so on Wikimedia Commons a series of unusable images including cars pictured from the back, car pictures with people in them, car pictures with the hood open, glare lightning, blurry images, and images flipped diagonally. As early as 2006, members of WikiProject Automobiles repeatedly asked you in both your "Bull-Doser" and "Take Me Higher" accounts to stop taking pictures from the back of the car. So why do you continue to doing it 7 years later? And what do you want Wikipedia to do with an image like this?

Your refusal to listen to others and to conform to policies only reinforce the point that your block should be permanent because your presence doesn't preserve in any way the credibility of Wikipedia. If you can't even behave on Wikimedia Commons, how do you expect people to believe that you'll behave on Wikipedia where you have a lot more problematic issues than just your images. Farine (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of a community ban

A proposal has been made to ban Bull-Doser from the Wikipedia community. The report can be access through the following link. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_for_a_community_ban_of_User:Bull-Doser Thank you. Farine (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how long don't I upload car pictures for me to return to the community and have good behaviour? I hear IFCAR is no longer around. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further socking

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bull-Doser --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]