User talk:WillyBova

Welcome!

Hello, WillyBova, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Vanessa Bayer. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Your recent editing history at Carrie Brownstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Marianna251TALK 23:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Marianna251TALK 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here WillyBova (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Listing options available to any legal person in America is not a "Legal Threat" it is an option to all users of Wikipedia or any other website in America. It is clearly an area of undefined law is process. A listed option is not even remotely a "Legal Threat" it is a definition of process to consider,r a listed option of American Law process is not a legal threat is not defensible in any legal arbitration or court process that it is, should that option be the only path available. To imply such from what I wrote as a threat is, childish, and Bullying behavior be an editor who has clearly demonstrable behavior that is clearly abusive. it is an option to all users in America[reply]

Decline reason:

Your comment here: "That has access to Discovery motions, to determine actual identity of a Wiki Avatar, to serve you a summons, if required should this matter not be resolved." is a direct legal threat, as you state you would seek a summons if required. The claims of wiki-bullying are also false, as no one is bullying you, and you have had multiple editors advise you to the method of style for how people are addressed within a BLP. Finally, your claim "it is Anti-Semetic to refer to a Jewish person by their last name" was uncalled for and can be seen as a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here WillyBova reply to RickinBaltimore RickinBaltimore clearly added a reason on this page out of context, as it was written, with an opinion that is subjective in the most extreme manner, and open to differing views. He takes the middle of a Sentence and distorts it's interpretation in a purgative manner to imply I mad a personal attack on an individual editor, I did not. The comment was intended to show that the policy the particular editor was citing, could be interpreted that way. In addition the policy is not absolute, as different pages are edited the way I was trying to improve to page. For instance, this page has the exact edit I was doing on the lead section in early life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Nielsen Leslie William Nielsen was born on 11 February 1926 in Regina, Saskatchewan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Brownstein here is the reverted edit from marrianne251 Brownstein was born in Seattle, Washington, and was raised in Redmond, Washington. Here was my edit Carrie Rachel Grace Brownstein was born in Seattle, Washington, and was raised in Redmond, Washington. Why is it OK in Leslie Neilson's case and not Carrie Brownsteint's to include first and middle name? FYI Carrie's actual name has two middle names. In addition it is horrible copy to repeatedly use a last name only to begin a Sentence, proper use of last name only can be used in the middle of a Sentence, but at the beginning is not considered English written well, and should;d be avoided. Bob Weir's page suffers this problem as do many others. In addition excluding a first name from a second picture is inconsistent on many pages. So these are just two examples of edit reversion's done by User:Marianna251, that in my opinion exceeded the established use of Names. I would ask that RickinBaltimore's accusing me of making a personal threat be removed as I perceive his out of context example a personal insult and a clear example of bullying and Vandalism of a user's talk page in an appeal process. I would email mr RickinBaltimore but I can not find a way to contact by email. (WillyBova (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the edit in question, I am of the exact same opinion as RickInBaltimore. You are very clearly threatening legal action against another editor, in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. The actual content under dispute is of no relevance to this block. Since you appear to have no intention of retracting this threat, the block will not be lifted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:30, 31 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here WillyBova Reply to: User:Yunshui With all Due respect, that issue has already been resolved, in the normal submitted appeal process that allowed others besides the FBI to examine my IP log's when I granted the Foundation's Discovery request. The issue of me making a "Legal Threat" was clearly a mistake by a new editor in a first dispute, I am not making a legal "Threat" by any definition of the English Language, it was intended as an option in an educational effort, not a threat.. The intention, is to resolve a dispute of a "three country Monty" bullying effort by three editor's one in Canada, One in UK and One in Baltimore. A review of the IP logs and entire sequence of edit's will clearly show collusion between to editor's on a message board over IP address's issues between Marrianne251 and RickinBaltimore, clearly bullying a new editor and Vandalizing the review process. I have no intention of Suing The foundation, I am attempting to make a better process. So review the "three editor Monty" interactions on the dispute page of the UK, Canada,and Baltimore user's, for further info on the dispute. I am not sure if You have access to the portion of the dispute from the submitted process. I am clearly a new editor, in his first dispute,reply, process, if you do not have time to review this issue, the DOJ and FBI, have already reviewed the IP issue and discovered unlawful access to an American's Compute by one both or all three of the editor's. So Your point over the legal issue, is moot, it is a Criminal issue at this point for American authorities to examine, that is outside of my control or the foundation's. It is an issue for people with Pensions in the three Countries to resolve on the criminal unlawful access. The issue of the edit is the issue at hand, of Which the edit example clearly showed, that portions of the edit in dispute, absolutely followed past practice as I have clearly shown, the issue is of the deliberate failure to examine the entire edit in a respectful manner to a new user, and the apparent. deliberate impertinence used in a creative pedantic bullying edit style by editor's of someone new to a process, and to justify the Vandalization of of the review process, of a new users Talk page with Quotes out of Context and edit's reverted in a manner that was disrespectful to the process etc.... Mr RickinBaltimore opinion's is not in the best interest of the Wiki process and clearly was intended in a derogatory manner. The edit war was started by someone else not me, I am new user attempting to be civil exploring a dispute process, I am unfamiliar with, granted my education and Legal background likely exceed the editors involved and perhaps, even Wikipedia's best legal counsel, but that makes No difference, Someone needs to review the entire chain who can be objective. This process will continue to be reviewed until respect is shown to a new users in a dispute process, and I request Arbitration on the entire matter, If this process becomes an infinite loop of circular pedantic impertinent logic. Mahalo WillyBova (WillyBova (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)) (2605:E000:D509:2800:241A:B181:4B8B:9964 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This was an unambiguous legal threat. Once your legal action is complete, you can request an unblock via WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2017 (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 think it's best that we turn off talk page access for this user until the FBI and DOJ have finished their investigation, so that he can stop wasting his education and Legal background on inferiors such as his fellow editors even Wikipedia's best legal counsel. E Eng 03:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Let him dig his own grave with his own remarks showing how ignorant he is of US laws and legal ethics. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing as this all is, I tend to concur with EEng; if the FBI tell us to unblock this guy at some point in the future then all well and good, but until then, leaving him with talkpage access is serving no useful purpose, so it's gone. Given what I've seen at OTRS I've revoked email access as well. Sorry for spoiling the show, guys. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News: An Editor has broken Ranks..., what if a 101st editor learns of this... See below explanation of Fair Use....

Willy Bova

Copyright violation

I have deleted your userpage text as it was a copyright violation of [1]. Please familiarize yourself with Wp:Copyright.

WillyBova reply

I believed I used the material in Fair Use in the manner it was written based on applicable Law, as it was written about me and properly cited in a biographical context reference of qualifying context. In addition I own the Copyright to the CD Rock Opera in Question, that was referenced. Mr Ranson, he does own his webpage, however his content is available for citation in the context as it was used, based on applicable law in may opinion.

Fair use is fine for quotes, however you took a significant chunk of a webpage clearly labelled as copyrighted and pasted it onto Wikipedia in excess of fair use quotation. Owning copyright of what is being discussed in that text does not in any way give you copyright rights over the text someone uses to talk about it. If that were the case film studios would own all copyright to reviews of their films, people in the public eye would own copyright of news stories written about them etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here WillyBova Reply to:

Canterbury Tailk

With all due respect Canterbury Tail, as a Canadian, of Which I believe you are, You do not understand, the issue, of Fair Use, coming from a Colonial Protectorate, Constitutional Monarchy it might be beyond your grasp. I would recommend searching an old law library, of West Law books, or subscribing to an online service, Last I checked Thompson-Rueters, own's West Law now. Based on actual Case Law in the United States of America, and as t's various path's case are required to have travel through American courts Law precedent is at best unevenly applies nationwide by design until it reaches the DC appellate court, "Canadian Constitutional Monarchy Law" while similar is actually extremely different than American law and as such, is mostly unsettled Law in many international and domestic disputes do to it's Canadian law's ever changing legal structure.

The issue described previously, clearly falls under Fair use. The length of Quoted material is irrelevant in determining Fair use in written use, it can still be refined but since only one quote was used from that Website, it clearly was Fair use despite of the length issue. You are confused in requires to written Fair use rather than documentary or news feature Film or other media issues involving video to film, whose fair use us covered by a different separate precedent all together, but I digress. The fact I co-own the copyright of the referenced material, was for your benefit, not in defense of the fair use claim. As you are from a Colonial Protectorate, with a work in progress at best "Colonial protectorate Constitutional Monarchy", with a short Judicial history, whose current timeline for a Canadian Supreme Court decision review in an international dispute is 28 years, as that is the shortest case on record to reach the Canadian Supreme Court, "the Italy Case", for the case that might break the 28 year record, their is a case started near 20 years ago now in Canadian court's, headed for a review Canadian Manlife the billion dollar pension case, that Canada will likely lose, Bigtime..... Please review the Barbados Vrs Manulife case for getting an idea of the difficulties in Canadian Law. As for American Law if you could site the applicable case please do or perhaps you could allow an editor not from a "Colonial Protectorate Constitutional Monarchy", lets say from America review and explain the difference between, Written Fair use, and News, Documentary, Video, and Film Fair use. As you are clearly confused, the position you are advocating would be a precedent setting case nationwide if it was affirmed by the DC appellate Court or Supreme Court of the United States. Seriously it took 10 years to even get the Open and Shut Nortel case insider trading case to t's first trial, for the blatant accounting fraud, that lead to the bankruptcy, a 10 year timeline to even get an indictment, Picture That, Canadian Law is at best primitive compared to American Law, perhaps someone else should review the issue, with a better understanding of the issue involved.

Mahalo

Willy Bova

Fascinating as that is, and I'm not sure why you believe I'm Canadian, it has no bearing on this situation. Please read WP:FAIRUSE for Wikipedia's policies on this matter. Canterbury Tail talk 11:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit summary [2] it appears you're an unmarried Canadian Colonial female. Do you deny it? E Eng 11:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(WillyBova (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)) (WillyBova (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)) Your addition 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. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #18854 was submitted on Jul 28, 2017 20:38:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the future: Even if the threat is withdrawn, the WP:CIR problem is severe, and probably deserves an indef on its own. E Eng 21:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #18856 was submitted on Jul 29, 2017 00:59:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]