User talk:Adambluekc

Possibly unfree Image:ABPSTARLOGOWEB.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ABPSTARLOGOWEB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Skier Dude (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Kcband125WEB.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Kcband125WEB.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KCAllStars1450x300.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KCAllStars1450x300.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KCAllStarsBAND2008400.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:KCAllStarsBAND2008400.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:DickClark&Adam3.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DickClark&Adam3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Adambluevoodoo2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Adambluevoodoo2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Thezerosband200.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Thezerosband200.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello Adambluekc. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 6 March 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).

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

Request reason:

We are a news site just like any other news site and have a right to post our news articles. Eagles247 is removing ALL of our posts with no reason other than pure prejudice. Our news site is no less credible than the other news sites who CONSTANTLY post on Wiki with links to their pages (which contain advertisements). Our news site is no different and should be treated fairly. We are under a personal attack from Eagles247 and it is not fair. Adambluekc (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have rights on Wikipedia, such as the right to vanish, but the "right to post [your] news articles" is not one of them; any content you post may be edited by anyone, especially if it is considered unconstructive or doesn't meet guidelines. In this case, your edits clearly appear to promote your site, and I see no evidence that it meets guidelines on reliable sources. Whether other editors do the same form of promotion does not give you the right to similarly err, and such editors are similarly reverted and blocked as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:07, 6 March 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.

Also, this edit summary appears to contain a legal threat. If it is not, then I suggest that you clarify as soon as possible. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Block changed to indefinitely per this. If you continue, your websites may be blacklisted from Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Thezerosband200.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Thezerosband200.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop trying to track my information, don't shoot the messenger. Wikipedia has policies for spamming websites, which you've violated. I have started an WP:ANI discussion, so hopefully you can talk to someone to gain an understanding of what is wrong with your edits. It's probably best for you to e-mail The Wikimedia Foundation with your concerns. For the most part, besides the spamming, your edits have been very useful, and I'm very sorry it has come to this. If you promise not to promote your websites (which I have stayed off per your request), you may be unblocked in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that it was very terrible for you to RIP through my contributions and delete ALL of them. Surely all of them are not spam. I was very careful to report the news just like any other news company does. Why does USA today get to post all of their articles? How, exactly, does my news site differ from their's? Specifically? Is it only because my news site isn't backed by a million dollar corporation that you felt it was "unreliable"? All of my posts can be easily verified to be unbiased and true. Every one. You even went in and put in the same information that I put in and gave other websites the credit on the reference. I just feel really violated and it is the classic story of keeping the small business man down. My site is NOT spam, and all of my contributions to Wiki were absolute facts and I kept them short and to the point and tried my best to follow the rules very strictly. No Admin has ever had a problem with me up until now and I've been contributing for years. I just think that you should admit that you got a little carried away and that some of my edits should be allowed. ESPECIALLY the page that I actually built from the group up - Kansas City blues. Basically all you did was go in and swap out my news stories for the same news story you found on another site and gave them credit. I just don't understand how that is any different than what I was doing. They are reporting news, I am reporting news. They list their website (with ads on them) as references, I list my news website as references. There just isn't any difference, except, of course you're not going to go deleting all of USA Today's contributions because you know they can defend themselves, whereas I, the small guy trying to get by, gets smashed out without a moment's thought. Is this what Wiki is about? And then to see you spend over 4 hours on my websites (some of them not even linked from Wiki) just didn't seem ethical. I do not like conflict and want to resolve this in the following manner:

You choose at least a couple of my news contributions and restore them. I deserve at least that. And I will be more prudent in the future in my posting, although USA Today and other news websites post the same thing to Wiki by the minute, adding nice little links to their fat cat websites. Give the little guy a break. I wasn't SPAMMING, that's just ridiculous. If I'm spamming, then The New York Times is spamming as well. They've posted a news contribution and they've added a link to their site under the references. Please explain how what I'm doing is any different. I want to resolve this extremely peacefully as I think this is just a case where you and I BOTH let our emotions carry us over the edge. Please put back some of my contributions, you basically just went in to all of my contributions, WROTE almost LITERALLY the same thing that I already wrote, and just found some other website to list as a reference. C'mon Man! That's just crazy. Let's work it out - thanks, Adambluekc (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand where you're coming from and you have reason to be upset. If I wrote for a news agency of any sort, I would feel slighted as well. However, we need to take a step back here. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote the references cited at the end of most articles. The purpose is to create an encyclopedia. There are some users on here whose sole purpose of editing is to promote their websites. This is simply not allowed. My intent as an editor here is not to take money away from small businesses.

When a reader comes to a Wikipedia article and see a statement they don't believe, they will go to the references section to confirm. But we can't just allow any website to be used as a reference. It would lose readers that way. Therefore, Wikipedia has adopted this policy to identify what can be considered a reliable source. I know this is frustrating to you, and maybe not fair for your businesses. If you can prove your website meets WP:RS, I will add your website back to articles, but I do not believe this will be the case. In fact, while looking through your contributions, I found scores of other editors remove your references as unreliable sources. As I said above, however, if you would like to contribute as an editor with an interest in building the world's largest encyclopedia, we'd be happy to have you. If you want to contribute with a profit in mind, on the other hand, I'm afraid this is not the correct venue. I truly apologize if I came off as wanting to ruin your business endeavors. The "reliability" standard of your website is not permanent, keep in mind. Profootballtalk.com (before it was bought by NBC) would never have been acceptable to cite in Wikipedia articles due to its unreliability, but it has grown over the years into one of the most respected sports news websites (IMO). (By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I was not actively searching for your websites. I happened upon a couple by mistake, and I left your news site open in a tab on my browser for a bit.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did some more reading in the WP:RS and I found the section on "blogs". It says that they can be used as a source but must be reviewed on a case by case basis. Can't you at least go in and look at some of the contributions that you removed (replaced)? I mean just the fact that you "re-reported", sometimes in the exact same wording, my contributions proves that you must have thought them valid. All you did was swap the reference over to another website. I won't bother you any more - I just ask that you please consider restoring at least 1 or 2 of my contributions. Thank you, Adambluekc (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the calm reply. That's one other thing that you've confused. Wikipedia is not a news agency itself, so by referencing something, it is not "reporting" on it. I will consider your request for the articles I could not find replacement references for. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! I love a happy ending. It just seemed crazy that I could be on Wiki for years without incident and then all of the sudden be in the top 10 most wanted :) Thanks!

I might be chiming in late, but I, like Eagles 24/7, was just following Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources, though I am not an admin, I rarely get reverted by admins now and have come a long way from my Carson Palmer incident. Also, what I said was not intended to be libelous and I apologize if you took it that way. Good luck getting your website going. It's not easy to do what your doing.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, when you date on wikipedia don't add "st", "rd", "nd", Dates should be (using today's date for example) March 6, 2012 not March 6th, 2012 per WP:DATESNO--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rockchalk, it is just too bad that a local Kansas City News source can't get a word in edgewise, rather they choose to take my words and give credit to ANY site other than mine, kind of like what you did. Doesn't help the middle class, that's for sure - NFL.com doesn't need any more money, I am HERE in Kansas City, got the story from a CHIEFS player Ryan Lilja, I also WORK for the Chiefs (you can call accounting at 1 Arrowhead Drive and ask if they have Adam Blue Productions on the payroll to verify) and I had written that story FIRST. I find it very disappointing that you guys would choose the billionaire websites over our own hometown sites. Then you started an avalanche when Eagles247 got a hold of me and he literally WIPED out every article that I had ever written without hesitation in about 45 minutes (3 years worth of work, no big deal). And the funny part is, he kept most of the wording of the contributions EXACTLY the same, and just changed the reference over to a fat cat news site instead. In some cases, the fat cat sites hadn't even written ANYTHING on the topic, he just took my news clips and gave them credit. It was beautiful work. I just feel so let down by this and it has ruined my whole week. Also, on a side note - I just got through donating a good amount of money to Wikipedia! Oh well, let's squash the small businesses, after all they aren't responsible for helping the economy or anything... Adambluekc (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel like we're attacking your business, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. You seem to be coming from the sttitude that using your site as a link here is going to drive up your hit counter. That type of attitude doesn't really mesh with community collaboration. Ish dar ian 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagles247 for restoring some of my contributions. I will be extra careful in the future. Problem solved. Adambluekc (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]