If you wish to appeal your block contact WP:BASC by email. 19:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I am being discrete because your profile says no barnstars, so instead of wikilove and a picture of coffee, I am going to just say thanks for removing the unnecessary statement to the Neil Young article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Chris!_c/t 02:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now we can't use an FBI press release, not just because the suspects might not like it, but because the bank who's security cam took the photo on the FBI release which is in every paper in the world might sue wikipedia for copyright infringement.

This is exactly why academics have a huge disdain for Wikipedia. Because it's run via mob rule by idiots.

I am the HELL out of of the boston article.

We have not only policy, but legal obligation. Ignoring these because people don't like Wikipedia would be foolish.

It is also the same reason you're not supposed to have a copyrighted photo of Tuvok on your profile page. The fair use policy only covers its use on Tuvok. I suggest removing it. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We have not only policy, but legal obligation." Why doesn't every newspaper in the world have the same legal obligation, 359? Are the lawyers for the CNN and CBS web sites not doing their jobs?

Or do you perhaps think it more likely that WE have no such legal obligation either, and that explains why thousands of newspapers and millions of websites know they can post an FBI press release without getting sued by the suspects? The whole assertion is preposterous.

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and media cite their sources, always. They do not do it to the full style that we do, but they still cite sources. What millions of other websites do is their own business. While on Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia policy.

Your uploaded rationale does not attempt to explain the copyright status of the photos, instead insisting that "no one argue it". The burden of proof is on you. If you cannot provide one, the images will be deleted. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to address what you originally wrote and deleted - The Tuvok picture is not on Wikimedia Commons, it is uploaded to Wikipedia, because it is a copyrighted photo used in Fair Use. Fair Use policy states that a picture can only be used on the article it is being used to illustrate. The file is not the problem. The fact that you are using it on your talk page (ie not the article the image has Fair Use for) is the problem. I suggest you become more aware of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons image policies before using or uploading more media. As for Wikistalking, that is a serious claim, and I suggest you not throw it around unless you know damn well what you're talking about. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml FBI=Federal Government. They publish it - can't be copyrighted. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why there are numerous exceptions? Clearly it's not that simple. Nor is the work wholly created by the FBI. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Legacypac. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is completely inappropriate to refer to other users as "retards" and to go on to insult an entire country under the guise of giving a user award to somebody. It's ok to tell someone you agree with them, not ok to use it as an opportunity to resort to name calling and slurs. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except I wasn't calling any specific editor a retard. Legacypac left a message on my talk page referring to my being attacked in one article, so I looked up his own battles in lots of articles. He's been hassled by everyone from religious nuts to political nuts.

WP:NPA is specifically about personal attacks on an individual. I deliberately did NOT mention any particular editor or any specific edit., and I made it clear that I wasn't referring not to any specific editor. But according to Beeblebrox, if I don't like the way Legacypac is being treated, or if I "insult" the United States (which I was born and raised in), he's going to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is exactly the kind of bullsht I was talking about. Petty ego-battles. Politics. Wiki-stalking. Personal vendettas. Here, find a crooked admin friend and have him ban me for saying this on my own talk page:

In my opinion, a whole lot of edits here at Wikipedia appear to have been made by retards—specifically, reversions made by political or religious fanatics defending their faith.
I was born an American and raised on a farm in New York. My country is made of retards, by retards, and for retards; and unless it stops being corrupt, I hope it perishes from the Earth.

Note that this isn't a joke. I fully expect your dishonest admin buddy to will ban me for saying that. He'll also delete this page to cover up his shameful activity.

Ask me if I care. I do this as a favor for you people; I don't get paid to and I'll be perfectly happy not to. I'll post this entire conversation with the crooked admin's name on one of those "WP is fuhh ktup" sites and forget about the whole project.

Now go away and leave me alone. There are punctuation and grammar errors to correct. It's what I do here at WP. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on WP:NPA specifies that it can only be directed at a singular user. But, since you want to be pedantic, let's try Wikipedia Etiquette instead. Not specifying a singular user does not get you off the hook for your behaviour. If you cannot hold yourself to interacting with those around you in a civilized and mature manner, then you will not be editing any more. We will gladly do without your favors if this is how you treat those that are doing the same volunteer work as you. If you want to be left alone, I suggest not doing things to draw attention to yourself. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA is OBVIOUSLY about personal attacks on an individual. Quote from it the part intended to suppress general statements like "many editors on WP edit poorly" or "I don't like what my country has become".

In fact, it SO doesn't apply that the very fact you're even saying it does on my talk page is harassment, prima facie. So is the fact that when you realized you screwed up by asserting WP:NPA, that you went looking for another excuse to harass me, namely etiquette.

I'm the victim here, not you. When I said I thought most Americans are stupid, you accused me of "insulting an entire country", and it angered you. That, and the fact that almost all your edits involve NASCAR leads me to suspect that you may be a "Patriotic American", and that your relentless hounding and threatening me has racial motivation.

You said "We will gladly do without your favors", as if Wikipedia includes you, but not me. I'm every bit as much "Wikipedia" as you are, sir. I'm also just as much "America".

One more thing. When I started talking about crooked admins, you switched to your non-admin sock puppet. Why was that? As an admin, it seems you specialize in banning people. Maybe a third to a half of your logged activity is banning people, and you've banned thousands of them. You also seem to take glee in ego-dominating them when they beg to be un-banned. Like this guy, a new editor. You banned him for vandalism his roommate made, and when he said he didn't understand why he was banned, you blocked him longer. He politely apologized:

What I am really trying to get at is that I messed up, I've learned not to do this kind (let others edit and then make fun of it) of thing and I only intend to continue to help Wikipedia. I believe that a 60-72 hour block and an ANI discussion would've been a much better route. Also, I was planning to also use my sandbox for a while, which I can't, since I am blocked. But most of all, I apologize to Wikipedia for my actions and I can assure that if I am editing by 00:00 of 21 April that I will be back to constructive editing and putting the incident behind and moving on back to constructive edits at aviation articles. Thanks. -Connor

Yet you denied this unblock request specifically because you didn't think he had groveled enough in the above. In fact, you kept fucking with him like a cat playing with a damaged mouse. When the mouse was almost dead, he pleaded to anyone who was listening:

I haven't made any sort of offence in all of the edits I've made since being demoted from a full user because I don't know why. So, if anyone's reading this, maybe you can look at my edits or the asks for me to be unblocked

When you tired of it, you blocked him permanently and blanked his talk page to hide your shameful ego-games.

You even wrote an essay about how much you hate it when numerous appalled onlookers protest your unfair, ego-driven blocks.

This is what will happen to ME. It's a near-certainty. What will your excuse be? That this entry is not "ettiquette" enough? That I'm "attacking" you now? That I don't show enough respect to someone who can do me harm? That I insulted America the Beautiful? Maybe you just don't like uppity (i.e., intelligent) black men.

It doesn't even matter. "Bad" wikipedia admins do WTF they want, to whomever they want, and they ignore the same rules they arbitrarily apply to others.

For example, you're supposedly upset because my "etiquette" wasn't dainty enough. Yet you defended your telling several other users to "fuck off" with:

I deal with the real world, I don't live in the fantasy world some Wikipedians would have us believe in where no matter how ridiculous someone is acting we all have to talk like kindergarten teachers lest somebody be offended.

Yet despite that, you will shortly ban me because I made a general statement that lots of WP editors and lots of Americans are stupid—based on your ridiculous claim that WP:NPA doesn't just apply to insulting individuals and that I "insulted an entire country".

I'm writing about this now so people can see it before you ban me and erase my talk page too, merely for protesting your bullying me on my own talk page.

I ask you yet again, go away and leave me alone.

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess there is a bit of confusion here. I am not Beeblebrox. We're not sockpuppets. Along with your claims of wikistalking and harassment, you don't seem able to produce much actual evidence to back these accusations. The simple fact that we both noticed your statement to Legacypac does not make us the same person.

Now, since I will not speak for Beeblebrox, here is addressing specifically the issues I myself raised. I for one don't really give too much for this distracting diatribe. This martyrdom kick is quite a bit overboard, personally. "Many editors on WP edit poorly" or "I don't like what my country has become", would have been no problem had that been what you actually stated. But that is not what you said, and you damn well know it. There is a fundamental difference between "I do not like how people edit" and "Many editors are retards", to paraphrase. One would think that one whose emphasis on Wikipedia is grammatical corrections would have enough of a grasp of the English language to be able to tell the difference between having tact and being downright insulting. You are not a victim, there are no victims. You were given a warning about your behavior and an attempt was made to help you understand general policy about how to act in a mature manner. Your refusal to accept it is your own doing. I do not give a flying fuck about your opinions about Wikipedia or the country, I don't give a flying fuck what race you claim to be on the other side of the internet. I, and the community, do however care about how you treat others while utilizing Wikipedia. To put it succintly, your assumptions are blatantly wrong and lack any sort of proof. The warning and advice were simple. Why you feel the need to become stubborn and drag it out, I do not know.

As for concern over my use of the collective We, I fail to see how it as bad as Your supposed Wikipedia.

You just couldn't resist harassing me more, could you, Beeblebrox? Just last year you were blocked from WP for bullying users (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page, expiry time infinite: Intimidating behaviour/harassment, personal attack.) Yet one of your buddies let you out of jail and you remain an abusive admin. I just discovered the site wikipediareview, and your other victims talk about the bad things you (allegedly) did.

For the last time, I request that you go away and stop harassing me on my talk page.

Pretty please with sugar on top.

PS: Do you seriously believe that expressing the general opinion that "lots of WP editors are retards" even deserves comment, much less being a crime deserving of banishment? You're suggesting that Wikipedia is like North Korea.

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what are you basing the assumption that I am Beeblebrox? The³5₉ (Talk) 08:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Upon seeing this diatribe this morning I thought maybe a broader discussion is in order. .Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked to prevent further soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:One of the suspects.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:One of the suspects.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]