Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:44, 12 May 2009

Image copyright problem with Image:Hc1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hc1.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Nicholas "Nicky Buck" Piccolo

A tag has been placed on Nicholas "Nicky Buck" Piccolo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mmoneypenny 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template I promised

May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Misplaced Pages pages, as you did to Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you.Template:Do not delete —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me regarding Misplaced Pages editing, please put your messages on my user talk page. Do not e-mail me for this sort of matter. I will not acknowledge such e-mails now or in the future. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Popartpete. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

-Jeremy 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I have been harassed relentlessly by these people via email, and I am the one blocked? They do this because they have the power, somehow. This is the type of abuse I got from Drew R. "Christon" Smith: Your book is not part of the history of the haunted mansion. It merely tells the tale of what happened. If you can provide something that would prove your book is reliable it can be used as a source, but it has nothing to do with the article itself. BTW Mendaliv reffered you to WP:ANI#e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user? I'd be careful what you say to other people if I were you. Nothing is private anymore I SAY,"What about the policy on threats. This is a threat of the FIRST RANK!" So I told him to get a life and call him guppy boy, and he replies... Ok. This coming from the guy who wrote a fake book about an event that nobody gives a shit about. I SAY, "Guppy Boy gets you suspended indefinitely. This is an out and out PERSONAL ATTACK but nothing is done." Then he writes: This is what One, your book isn't published. Its fake. Two, I don't give a shit about the "high road" when you attack me at my e-mail. This is what I got from I'll be civil on wikipedia. Not here. Here, I rule. Not admins, not beaurocrats, not jimbo. This is my email address, and if you hit me here i will hit back. Hard. That being said. No one gives a shit about your "credentials". You cant add an advertisement for your book to an article. Even if you aren't selling your book, you are still using the article to get people to read your book. Thats not the way things work on wikipedia. One other point. Don't call me guppy boy. If you look at my contributions, which I'm sure you haven't, you would see that I have never contributed to an article about guppies. I SAY, "This is not harassment via email. I've been PERSONALLY ATTACKED, THREATENED, AND HARASSED VIA EMAIL. None of my emails did the same. So this begs the question::: WHY DON'T you editors criticize and punish your own? The guy is mad because I called him guppy boy and told him to stick to guppy articles and not to edit articles he of which he is ignorant. For that I should be suspended indefinetly? THIS IS A JOKE. No wonder wikipedia has such a poor reputation! It's because of PEOPLE LIKE THIS! I have asked you people for help in regards to how I should approach my articles, and instead of help, I get abused. I might not know every rule on wikipedia, but I know this: if I did, and did see somebody struggling, I'd offer advice, rather than to cut somebody's TRUTHFUL statements that are ADVERTISING NOTHING, except a free link on a website and WOULD NEVER THINK to LIE and have them blocked for rules they themselves have egregiously violated.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, see WP:TLDR and WP:NOTTHEM. —Travis 22:41, 10 May 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

Look, maybe you people are not thrilled with me, but I have no quarrel with anyone, really. The block is kind of an overkill. I am not horrible person, I just want help with adding to the article in the correct fashion. I need help. I think I have a place in that article, and should be able to add it. Instead of arguing, why cannot the editors in which I am in dispute help me to add to it in the proper fashion? I simply do not know enough wiki rules to do it myself, and that's where the problems arise. I think I could be a valuable contributor, but as a journalist who is not often questioned, I fully admit I get angered and incensed when people change my ideas. Maybe if we worked together, it could happen for all of us. Please let me know.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason given for your block.  Sandstein  14:02, 11 May 2009 (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.

NOTE: I don't see any evidence that you have even attempted to build consensus for whatever change you are proposing - you have only one edit to an article's talk page, and the tone of that edit is anything but cooperative. If I'm missing something, please point it out. The way things are supposed to work around here is neatly covered by the BRD editing cycle. In other words, Boldly make an edit; if it is Reverted, Discussion should ensue on the article's talk page before making the change again. Regards —Travis 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, I think it may be appropriate to extend a "last chance" to this user provided he agree to abide by appropriate Misplaced Pages policies. It may be necessary to restrict his use of the email user feature as well, to force him to keep things on-wiki. While I typically would prefer to see WP:SO observed, this editor's unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages policy may be a sufficiently extenuating circumstance given what appears to be an honest unblock request. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree, but am awaiting a response from the user before contacting the blocking admin. If this user is watching, they may wish to refactor their unblock request per my earlier note. —Travis 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this user because of abuse of the email feature; specifically, he was issuing personal attacks to another user and vowing to edit-war (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive535#e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?). Any unblock request must address the email concern, since it's not technically possible to segregate blocking editing privileges from blocking email privileges. -Jeremy 03:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research, including the above ANI thread and this thread, I have concluded that this user is a single-purpose account used for self-promotion and promotion of his original research documentary and online book. With only one exception, the user's mainspace edits have been entirely self-promotional, so I do not think that the user has a legitimate role here. —Travis 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{tlx|unblock|How long should I expect to be banned}

Please note the differences between being banned and blocked. You have been blocked, not banned. In either case, though, please use only one unblock request at a time. Thanks. —Travis 02:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked status

As I said before, I have no quarrel with anyone. I'd like to be unblocked. I'd like help with my editing, so that it is proper to wiki standards. I had no idea that it wasn't proper to email the editors directly. I looked, but didn't see any other contact info, so that's where I went. I did not think of or really know to much about the discussion pages, etc., at least not as much as I do know. I see now that if you dispute an edit, simply go to the discussion page and hash it out there and a third party will intervene. In this instance, I know tempers and emotions went overboard, but there really was no threats or real harassment or either end. If you look the night that I made the update, I contacted Cliff C, another editor I'd dealt with in the past, to look over my adjustment, and to see if it fit correctly or was inappropriate in anyway. You see, Questioning The Report was there for years, and Cliff and I worked to get it a way that it fit. When the book went online, I added another small section in this area. The change alone was not removed, but the entire section, which ticked me off, as I worked to get it there. So I ask to be unblocked, so I can work with these editors again in a beneficial way in the future.

You personally attacked other editors via email, PTP. While it is sometimes legitimate to need to contact another editor via email, calling them douchebags and vowing to continue to edit-war via email is flatly unacceptable. -Jeremy 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question.

You did not answer my question.

How long will this block be expected to last?, is still my question.

Horrible things were written to me, yet why is that permissible? This seems very one-sided.

Are these buddies of yours? Sounds like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your block log by clicking on your contributions (found in the toolbox section on the left side of the page) and then clicking "Block log" at the top of that page. At present, this block has no specific expiry set because your unblock requests have thus far been declined because they do not address the email abuse you've given. -Jeremy 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As an indefinite block, it has no set duration. In other words, it will last until it is over. —Travis 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being self promotional. Every person in Hollywood, even the President of the United States, is self promotional. There's an entire machine behind every public person, whether they hire professionals, or they run that team themselves. If you don't believe in yourself, who will? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. When you apply for a job, you are being self-promotional. Are you ashamed to go on job interviews or write a resume. However, I am not trying to promote myself in this case, but the story, dedicated to the memory of the dead, for free. I have edited stuff for years which had nothing to do with self-promotion, so I beg to differ that there is only one occasion. However, you needn't bother reply, for I am giving up ever trying to post on wiki ever again. It's only as good as the people who control it, and they all seem to be in co-hoots, and be just as bad, or worse, than those they punish for nothing. As far as publicity, at 2 p.m., I am being interviewed on camera about my "fake" book for a statewide news telecast, today being the 25th anniversary of the fire. I will mention that wikipedia editors have also been successful to keep the Haunted Castle truth in the dark, with agendas of which I can only imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Spam, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Undue weight before you start accusing us of anything to get an idea as to the issues other admins have raised regarding your self-promotion or lack thereof. The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. -Jeremy 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question AGAIN.

QUESTIONS: Why I am blocked? Why are others not blocked, if your policy forbids threats and personal attacks in emails? That's what was done to me, with no sanction, except to me. Why I am singled-out? Are these your buddies? I'd bet they are. All I get is roundabout answers from you people. How do you could determine what they sent you (supposedly sent by me to them) is even legitimate. I could forward a bunch of words to you that I wrote myself and claim they came from anybody. Fool.

Threshold of truth

Let's just print a bunch of lies, and stomp on anyone who dares to offer an alternate opinion. My word is good enough for ABC World News Tonight, but not you lot. Let's "verify" our information based on statements made by morons, totally ignorant on the subject matter. My work is called, "shit" and "fake", but yet, you do nothing to your buddy. You shameful, power-hungry little people with no lives.

SOME SANE EDITOR, WHO IS NOT BUDDIES WITH THESE PEOPLE please help me.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There must be some editor out there that sees I am being unmercifully attacked by these people, all in co-hoots. I have offered every sincere attempt to work with them and begged for their help, but they arbitrarily block me. If I am blocked for email wrongdoing, so should Drew R. Smith. Why is he not? Is calling my work "shit" and "fake" not attacks on me personally via email. I think so. HE KNOWS THE RULES, whereas I really do not, BUT it seems he is above the rules. Is being told I am on a soapbox not a personal attack? That is an insult, by every definition I could find. Who is qualified to make such a statement? Is being called self-promotional not an attack? How does Travis know what my motives for things are. He doesn't, and never will I am portrayed as an evil villian, and people like Drew, Travis and others walk on water, and turn water into wine while doing the same damn thing. WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW you people proclaim to hold so near and dear? Why is something done by one the subject of punishment, and worse done by others totally okay? The double standard is laughable. This is a KANGAROO COURT, where I am automatically found guilty without a fair, objective weighing of the evidence or even consultation! Being told my ban "while last until it lasts" is unacceptable and VERY SPITEFUL and EXTREMELY UNFAIR. Doing things for spite is a million times worse than anything I may have done. If am not unblocked, I will sign up under a different name and use another IP address, as I can log in on a variety of wireless networks available at my disposal 24/7, so YOU'RE STUCK ME WITH, LOCKED TOGETHER IN HATRED, unless someone comes to my aid. WHO is not afraid of the little, not so bad wolf???  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There must be some editor out there that sees I am being unmercifully attacked by these people, all in co-hoots. I have offered every sincere attempt to work with them and begged for their help, but they arbitrarily block me. If I am blocked for email wrongdoing, so should Drew R. Smith. Why is he not? Is calling my work "shit" and "fake" not attacks on me personally via email. I think so. HE KNOWS THE RULES, whereas I really do not, BUT it seems he is above the rules. Is being told I am on a soapbox not a personal attack? That is an insult, by every definition I could find. Who is qualified to make such a statement? Is being called self-promotional not an attack? How does Travis know what my motives for things are. He doesn't, and never will I am portrayed as an evil villian, and people like Drew, Travis and others walk on water, and turn water into wine while doing the same damn thing. WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW you people proclaim to hold so near and dear? Why is something done by one the subject of punishment, and worse done by others totally okay? The double standard is laughable. This is a KANGAROO COURT, where I am automatically found guilty without a fair, objective weighing of the evidence or even consultation! Being told my ban "while last until it lasts" is unacceptable and VERY SPITEFUL and EXTREMELY UNFAIR. Doing things for spite is a million times worse than anything I may have done. If am not unblocked, I will sign up under a different name and use another IP address, as I can log in on a variety of wireless networks available at my disposal 24/7, so YOU'RE STUCK ME WITH, LOCKED TOGETHER IN HATRED, unless someone comes to my aid. WHO is not afraid of the little, not so bad wolf???  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There must be some editor out there that sees I am being unmercifully attacked by these people, all in co-hoots. I have offered every sincere attempt to work with them and begged for their help, but they arbitrarily block me. If I am blocked for email wrongdoing, so should Drew R. Smith. Why is he not? Is calling my work "shit" and "fake" not attacks on me personally via email. I think so. HE KNOWS THE RULES, whereas I really do not, BUT it seems he is above the rules. Is being told I am on a soapbox not a personal attack? That is an insult, by every definition I could find. Who is qualified to make such a statement? Is being called self-promotional not an attack? How does Travis know what my motives for things are. He doesn't, and never will I am portrayed as an evil villian, and people like Drew, Travis and others walk on water, and turn water into wine while doing the same damn thing. WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW you people proclaim to hold so near and dear? Why is something done by one the subject of punishment, and worse done by others totally okay? The double standard is laughable. This is a KANGAROO COURT, where I am automatically found guilty without a fair, objective weighing of the evidence or even consultation! Being told my ban "while last until it lasts" is unacceptable and VERY SPITEFUL and EXTREMELY UNFAIR. Doing things for spite is a million times worse than anything I may have done. If am not unblocked, I will sign up under a different name and use another IP address, as I can log in on a variety of wireless networks available at my disposal 24/7, so YOU'RE STUCK ME WITH, LOCKED TOGETHER IN HATRED, unless someone comes to my aid. WHO is not afraid of the little, not so bad wolf???  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Popartpete 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages
• Requests for unblock