User talk:Apollo1975

Reply re: Clemson articles

You have not made any edits under this username, so I can only presume you were previously editing anonymously. If you could point out some specific edits you think are problematic, I can discuss them. Generally speaking, you should try to work out your differences with the other person whom you are reverting/or is reverting you. Have you tried to contact that user personally? Ask them about your changes? Discussion and collaboration is key to our project here. We have to be able to get along, and find common ground with our fellow editors. Again, if you point out specific edits, or at least give me the username or IP address of your prior edits, I can discuss more specifically. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to alter the page to a more non-biased format concerning no-free overuse logos, but have been having difficulties with the user "Garnet & Black" (& 129.252.69.40). I will attempt discussion, but it is obviously from viewing the page histories that the users in question has little non-biased or objective basis for editing content. Due to complaints and minor edits, I attempted to use identical sized, traditional school logos that were used originally, and place them side by side. The university banner seems inappropriate placed underneath a sports rival's logo and the page is not about the educational institution. The original paw / gamecock? logos placed side by side, of the same size, seemed to be the best solution & aesthetically pleasing, and there should not be a non-free overuse problem since since the identical logos in the "blood-drive" sections were replaced. Will add more to the discussions page. Thanks. Apollo1975 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we HAVE to use the free logos in these articles. We cannot use non-free images when there are free replacements. While you may have an argument that these aren't the "best" logos to use, we still have to acknowledge Wikipedia's mission to be the "Free Encyclopedia", not the "best" encyclopedia. I'd encourage you to read our non-free content page, WP:NFC. If you think there are more specific athletic logos, that are text-only and/or otherwise freely licensed, then we can easily consider upgrading the logos from one free logo to another. But if the logos serve the exact same purpose, we HAVE to use the free ones, no question. That said, we should also strive to assume good faith in our fellow editors. Calling established editors edits as biased or "vandalism" isn't appropriate. Vandalism means something specific, and a content dispute between two editors acting in good faith is not vandalism. Anyway, I hope this doesn't discourage you from becoming an active and productive Wikipedian. I'd be glad to discuss non-free content further with you, or discuss any of our other basic policies and guidelines, to help you "learn the ropes". -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I have studied other websites on the subject of sports related rivalries, but those seem to have less problems than these pages. I see those pages using standard, or traditional logos with registered trademarks. This should not be a problem if not overused. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina%E2%80%93Duke_rivalry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rivalry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_%E2%80%93_Ohio_State_football_rivalry The University of North Carolina / Duke rivalry page is a good example. "GarnetAndBlack" has been using, for example, a registered baseball logo on a page he created called "2010 South Carolina Gamecocks baseball team" but has been altering logos on Clemson University related material as well as re-editing content. See histories of Clemson University, Clemson Athletics, Clemson Football, and 1981 Clemson Football team pages. I think if you review the histories, you will see which participants have been acting in "good faith."

So out of the entirety of Wikipedia, these are the only articles you have issues with? And you claim that you have "no affiliation to the university in question"? Riiight. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just stated that I used other sports related pages as references, and linked them. Perhaps you should view them. Never made a statement that these were the only pages I that have "issues with."

Wikipedia isn't always perfect. The longhorns logo was used inappropriately, so I have updated that (there wasn't even a fair use rationale for that article, so it was in violation on multiple counts). That said, all those other example articles are OK. Want to know why? Because they all use freely licensed images (rather, images which we are claiming are in the public domain under US copyright law). Trademark and Copyright are two very different issues. Please study up on the distinction. We allow the use of trademarked images, as long as their copyright status is acceptably "free" under our rules. What I find a little troubling is that after I said those graphical images were unacceptable, you go and revert again back on the rivalry page. Please take note that non-free image abuse and overuse is a blockable offense, and so is edit warring. I'm sure there are many other ways you can help contribute to our project. Edits like this are not. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, as I said I moved the traditional ones up from the bottom of the page. Actually, you may want to check on that Texas symbol. Looks similar to the University of Tennessee logo, and possibly out of date. Seems that almost all professional sports & college pages are using their more current or traditional logos. With that said, I was just also looking again at the Duke / UNC rivalry page as a model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina%E2%80%93Duke_rivalry My edits were attempting to make the page more neutral, with revolving "points of view" from the title to the end of the page. The title of that article actually could be changed but not necessary if neutrality is corrected- there is a cited discrepancy over the use "Carolina" by other users. It seems that a logo used more often with baseball or athletics "on-top" of a university logo is possibly inappropriate. If it continues to stay this way perhaps the logos just need to be removed for now (looks to me like "GarnetAndBlack" re-edited all of "Hammersofts" changes of the "gamecock" logos on the individual team pages all the way from 1999-2009, which is the exact same logo I used in this page).Apollo1975 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Warning

Please refrain from reverting edits repeatedly without reading and understanding Wikipedia policy per WP:3RR, as you are doing at Clemson Tigers football. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring, as you have been doing using multiple IPs. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been using multiple ips. Rather than be obstinate, try being more proactive. As with the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry page, would you prefer alternating, point of view, "rivalry names" in italics or bold. Bold seems to be the standard, however italics used "in reference" is sufficient and seems more aesthetically pleasing. You can re-"link" or bold them if you prefer. See UNC-Duke rivalry page (or other sports related pages) as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina%E2%80%93Duke_rivalry

The only one being "obstinate" here is you, as well as being disingenuously dishonest. Do you really believe that anyone buys that a brand-new username is registered and picks up reverting and edit warring in articles where multiple anonymous IPs have been making the same edits, and all this happens within the same 24 hour period? You have been warned here and on the talk page of the IP that has made most of these POV edits, your next reversion will result in you being reported for edit warring. I'm finished discussing the matter any further because you clearly have no intention of understanding and following Wikipedia policies. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2010 (U

Huh? While I was waiting for your response I was reading edit histories. You seem to have quite a history of the behavior that you are trying to accuse me of. I have no history of "edit warring." I have also been re-familiarizing myself with wikipedia policies. I obviously care about the validity and use of the content. My edits have been proactive, neutral & I have provided alternatives. "I'm finished discussing the matter any further"-- show me where you have "discussed" anything at all.

While waiting for my response you also continued your edit warring. You've been reported. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been engaging in edit warring. I haven't re-edited anything. But you have. You obviously don't care about about the 3 edit rule here, since you have made over 4 edits per page in less than 24 hours. It's in the edit history. I'm looking at it right now. By the way, did you take a look at those reference pages?

Clemson Tigers football

Just wanted to let you know that I've been keeping an eye on your discussions with various Wikipedia editors, and should you decide to revert the edit you made to this article in the "Danny Ford Era" section, which removes well-sourced and notable content without first seeking consensus, you will have that POV edit reverted, and should you once again edit war in a continued attempt to remove content which has been merged into the article after a lengthy process (you can read all about it in the talk page of this article) involving multiple editors who also invested "hours" of their time, you will be reported. Just thought I'd give you an advance warning just in case you had thoughts along these lines. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know by now Garnet that bullying is against policy. I "anticipated" that you were probably trolling this site, and reading my discussions, although since they were never replied to on my talk page not sure why they would be of interest to you. Yes, I have spent hours reading the discussion, checking policy, and creating an edit that followed edit policies: rephrasing, correcting inaccuracies while keeping content, adding more information to make an article more balanced, correcting links & citations. Perhaps you should read about these on the "Editing policy" page under the heading "fixing a problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

May I also remind you that if you engage in more edits or reverts that you will be in violation of the 3RR. Apollo1975 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The only one who has been edit warring is you. You have been warned on multiple occasions about breaking the 3RR rule. I have sought a neutral consensus.Apollo1975 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

GarnetAndBlack: Please refrain from reverting edits repeatedly without reading and understanding Wikipedia policy per WP:3RR. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring, as you have been doing using multiple IPs.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, sock puppetry, and harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

Apollo1975 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How am I supposed to write a defense and submit it if I have been blocked? I tried to do that but was unable to it "requires an edit." I think my contributions will show that I have only attempted one or two edits at all. I have been reading up on and following all of the guidelines especially since they have been brought to my attention by more non-biased, non-disruptive users. I seem to have been having a problem with one user. You can check all of the discussion and talk pages I have written to. As for these other bogus users, especially "tigerman?whoever" you can cross reference my ip???? I am not said user and do not know this user obviously. I also attempted to check the other supposed usernames-- don't see where they have a history of any edits. How can that be sockpuppetry if they haven't edited anything, or anything related to my own edits?

Decline reason:

Since this was a Checkuser-based block, someone with that privilege is going to have to review it. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (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.

{{Unblock on hold|1=2over0|2=Thanks for at least taking the time to respond. Part of this request got lost. I wasn't aware that having multiple complaints filed against an abusive user was grounds for sock puppetry, since the other complaint was actually filed by another person. Again, none of this had anything to do with any edits of any kind. The other "usernames" in question obviously had nothing to do with me. I urge anyone to take a look at my talk pages or contributions to see.|3=- 2/0 (cont.) 04:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)}}

Tiger2012 (talk · contribs) does not appear to be you based on behavioral evidence; I do not believe that the Check user tool was run on this account, and I blocked the account as vandalism-only simply because I was the first admin to notice.
AWhiteHat (talk · contribs), however, is highly likely to be you based on both behavioral and technical evidence. This is as good as it gets in terms of proving that two accounts are controlled by the same person. The sole use of this account was to disguise the retaliatory nature of a sock puppetry filing.
The contributions from this account also show a marked tendency towards arguing the behavior of others rather than discussing the sources. Playing the ref instead of the ball, if you will. You do seem to earnestly desire to improve our coverage of the Clemson Tigers, though. If I unblock this account, will you agree to:

• use this account and only this account, in accordance with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry;
• avoid making any edits to Clemson Tigers football and related articles for one week; polite discussion is fine - there is no deadline;
• avoid edit warring; this means that if someone reverts one of your edits, you raise or participate in a discussion and develop a consensus among involved editors before making the same or similar edit;
• take reasonable steps to resolve editorial differences editorially rather than bureaucratically?

The process outlined at WP:Dispute resolution may help. In return, I will keep an eye on the contributions of GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs), and warn or block them if I notice any edit warring or other unsavory behavior. Do you find this acceptable? You are free to decline and request review from another admin. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As you make this decision, 2/0, you might consider that User:Apollo1975 created yet another account, User:Apollo1976, before making this unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting to feel alittle ganged up on here. I wasn't trying to conceal anything, I was having trouble getting my posts above to clear. After reading & re-reviewing more policy, isn't this (WP:doppelganger)?Apollo1975 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? I can't believe that this is even being discussed. This user has done nothing since starting this account but continue the tendentious editing/reverting of a pair of anonymous IPs, and the behavioral evidence for that is quite strong indeed. And are continued denials of wrongdoing really effective in getting blocks lifted these days? There is CheckUser evidence that this user engaged in sockpuppetry while clearly being aware that it is against policy (evidenced by the filing of bad-faith sockpuppet reports against me), but has yet to accept responsibility for those actions. What kind of message does unblocking someone who doesn't express the slightest remorse really send? Also, I see that this user has registered yet another sock account, clearly in preparation to continue disruptive activity if their unblock was denied. What does that tell us about this user? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can believe this is being discussed, because indef blocking was quite harsh. I support a block shortening if the user promises a) to admit he socked, b) to admit the problems with edit warring, and c) a contrite attitude in the future with more experienced users (e.g., users more familiar with WP:NFCC).

@JPGordon: I was under the impression this user was editing from a public IP at the university (although maybe that was GarnetAndBlack); is the checkuser evidence unequivocal? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This user has edited on several different IPs, which is not unusual. However, his most recent edits on this page were preceded on the same IP with the creation of the 1976 account. Unequivocal, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you people ever eat, sleep, have real life responsibilites; give a guy an opportunity to respond. ;) Actually I have been having trouble with the templates here as well, and trying to communicate in this "teeny tiny box" has made responding rather slow, and frustrating, yes I created another account in case I could not communicate here. I have lost several responses. The user WhiteHat was a person I know who I told about my difficulties here, but didn't perform any edits that I am aware of. I have discussed this with 2over0. As for the other users, especially the Tiger2010 person, was obviously not me. You can cross reference my ip's if that is possible. And I have not been using "multiple" ip's to re-edit content as I have stated numerous ("gazillion"--edit?) times. That's definitely not "My" MO. Sorry, having trouble reading this screen. The only other ip possible that I can think of is the one on my laptop before I registered an account? And the first part of the former was a joke of course (not out to offend anyone). Apollo1975 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you've used multiple IPs -- but you probably haven't even known about it when it's occurred; most people don't pay any attention to the IPs they are connected to the net from, and would have no reason to know that their IP address is not the same as it was the previous time they connected; it's nothing under their control. There's no suggestion of wrongdoing in my mention of the fact that multiple IPs were used; I was just clarifying the checkuser finding. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So I see nothing but more flimsy excuses and stubborn refusal to admit even the slightest bit of wrongdoing. I guess it's up to admins to decide from here how to resolve this, but the statements above speak volumes, and you know where my opinion falls on this user. I firmly believe that if this block is lifted, we'll have nothing but more of the same disruptive behavior from this editor down the road. This will be my final comment on the matter. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would be willing to support a shortening of the block under certain conditions. One of those being, absolutely no sockpuppetry, no edit warring, or disruptive editing. In short, you would be on a short leash, that shouldn't be that hard to follow by, but which if you have a propensity towards disruption, will immediately cut you off. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you, I filled out a template incorrectly earlier, and I had a rather busy schedule today. I was honest when I said that I was unaware that allowing or influencing someone to file a similar complaint against the same user was sock-puppetry. It is important that I make that clear. I assumed that sort of violation had more to do with editing than filing formal complaints, a policy that has nothing to do with online published content. I assure you that I will not make that kind of error in judgment again. Since I am kind of new here & still learning the technical ropes to the wikipedia systems, even though I have editing experience in the RT world, that I will try to use the discussion pages more rather than just use the talk pages to ask more experienced users questions or concerns. Also, since I was unable to use other talk pages because of the blocking limitations, how does one find other editor's email links? I was unable to use your talk page yesterday because of this. The only email link I could find was 2/0's. I wanted to thank you for keeping an eye out on me, since you could have easily cast a blind eye on me, or this matter. Apollo1975 (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith here and unblock you. Please, please, edit constructively and collaboratively. Since nobody seems to have formally welcomed you yet, I am including some useful links and advice in the next section. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Apollo1975, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)