User talk:Cafejunkie

Hello Cafejunkie, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Playing in the sandbox

Hello! Call me Eco...and thanks for the message. Why not create a page called User:Cafejunkie/Sandbox -- this way, you can import text and fool about with it before you decide to share it with the Wikipedia community? To create the page, go to that box in the left column call search and type in User:Cafejunkie/Sandbox -- from there, you can create your page and start editing. Hope this helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing okay. Call on me if you ever need help. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

File:Achidiac.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Achidiac.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Achidiac.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Achidiac.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthony Chidiac.jpg

Hi. I saw where you uploaded File:Anthony Chidiac.jpg. With any image that is not the original work of the uploader, and not on a website that clearly states the license (eg, flickr), documentation of permission from the copyright holder needs to be on file with the Wikimedia Foundation. Please see WP:PERMISSIONS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Could you have the copyright holder submit this or some other statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Please note, the statement needs to not just say, "please upload this image to Wikipedia" or "you can use this photo" - it needs to be (in the case of this image, which is tagged as being in the public domain, a statement that matches the tag, something along the lines of, "I, _________, release this image into the public domain, and irrevocably release all rights to it." Thanks. --B (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

referred to chidiac for release. Cafejunkie (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please understand that the procedure isn't just for the sake of making things difficult or having hoops to jump through - it is for the protection of content creators to make sure that someone can't just upload any file from the internet, slap a tag on it, and claim it as their own and to make sure that those who do contribute their own work under a free content license do so with informed consent. --B (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

completely and utterly understand B. its great to know someone is on the case for it. Nope, you're not making it difficult you are keeping wiki free of violating content. and thats great of you. More power to you mate :) Cafejunkie (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Chidiac3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chidiac3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 10:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chidac

Anthony Chidiac

Dear Peripitus. I am disappointed that you have deleted article Anthony Chidiac without:

Properly looking at the contents of the debate (subject requested debate continue until he returns in mid february)
Your allegations are completely untrue
You have gone against a consensus of people (some editors and admins) who said to cleanup not delete, again check sources properly please
You have sent me a pile of rubbish on my userpage (about copyrighted photos) when e-mails/faxes went direct to wikimedia clearing such images.
The Age, Herald Sun, CNN, Today Show, Dave & Kim, Government Publications, Channel Nine, etc etc are all INDEPENDENT and MAJOR Sources in both Australia and the world. The previous two attempts lacked this reference material. I remind you that Wikipedia is a reference of references.

Please reconsider your decision. You have deleted an important person in the digital technology industry without following due process, reading, and ignoring the requests of a consensus of individuals.Being mindful of your other behaviour here in wikipedia, I will as a last resort ask for a deletion review if you dont seem to understand why I feel that your decision is completely unjustified. Thanking you in consideration of such.--Cafejunkie (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll address the deletion debate first before your other points. It is very clear that there is a connection between many of the logged out editors in the debate, though what that connection is I can only speculate. As is usual practice in such debates the IP address edits, and those by virtually brand new accounts (Azurewiki) are either discounted or given very little weight. What this boils down to is a number of editors arguing that the references are not proof of notability and that the article is a self-promotional vehicle - this is partly backed up by the behaviour of the IP address participants. Against this I have yourself strongly arguing to keep the article DGG who makes a comment but without addressing the "notability" reason for the nomination so his contribution is given little weight. Ret.Prof presents the only non-discounted opinion, apart from yourself, actually arguing to keep the article. I see that the weight of (established account) opinion is that the subject is not notable. Note that though I did read the article, and follow the reference links, before closing the article I have not formed an opinion on the matter myself; I do this simply to make sure we have a result that is not prima facie silly due to lack of participation in the debate. Should you wish to persue this you are welcome to take the matter to Deletion review.

As for your other points above.

I certainly did properly read the debate and, as stated above, look at the contents of the article, in fact I'd been watching it with interest for some days.
Do you mean allegations of collusion/the same person ? I am speaking based on behavioural evidence here that is fairly clear. The same person, or persons acting together, or user's of a single forum with a single purpose.....all have the same effective result. I do note that you commented they were all different people....how do you know this ? I have just looked through the list of accounts, apart from yourself, who have edited the account and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. Both of these reinforce that there are linkages between editing accounts.
See above for how I see the consensus of the debate
Your choice to characterise it as rubbish. With the channel 10 logo it is most likely that the copyright belongs to channel 10 and only they can chose to release it under a free licence. You are welcome to participate in the linked non-free image debate. I have tracked back some and determined that this image was uploaded by an alleged sockpuppet account of Mr Chidiac (see the above link) and deleted back in 2007, though it was then claimed as "self-made"
These are matters that were examined by those who stated the article should be deleted. The opinions of those participating in the debate, on the quality of the sources, is pertinent, not mine.

I understand your feelings on this as an article where you feel strongly about the notability of the subject, and where you have spent considerable time editing, has been deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 21:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 1 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. 118.209.190.137 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn It Up! (Music TV), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Quintus314 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am NOT Anthony Chidiac nor have any connection with any previous reincarnations of subject. Please unblock me, this is a false and vexatious allegation. further - IP 203.219.135.147 is a wireless proxy and accessible by hundreds of dwellers in this apartment estate and retail shops etc. thankyou

Decline reason:

You have been investigated not only by IP, but by behaviour. You = Azurewiki = 203.219.135.147; all of whom just happen to drop by AfD discussions on the same non-notable topic. Be careful with phrasing like "vexatious". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

i repeat, 203.219.135.147 ip is a single wireless proxy address used by hundreds of dwellers in this apartment estate. retail shops below, McDonalds etc. I will use phrasing such as vexatious because you are accusing me of being a person I am not. please restore my profile, my front page, etc. I am NOT Anthony Chidiac and have and/or bear no relation to him. this is a false accusation. Can a legitimate, experienced admin please verify my claim. My apologies for sounding nasty, but you cant simply associate one ip with a user account or two and claim that I am a person I am not. thankyou.

Decline reason:

Possibility one: purely by coincidence, eight different people who live in your apartment building all happen to care deeply about the same person, a minor technical functionary whose name seems likely to be unknown to anyone but himself and his family and friends. They all, independently, edit in the same ways, using even the same writing style. Possibility two: You, like everyone who has tried the multiple-account game before you, are lying. I'm afraid that possibility one seems profoundly unlikely; I can't even imagine how that would happen.FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

ip in question is a food mall hotspot (under apartment block). Allegaton is frivolous and vexatious and completely unproven, please restore my access. I cant believe I have been accused of lying too! geez. lots of ips have edited, if you dont unblock I'll simply just use another account, which is silly don't you think? Can, someone with seniority actually see that Im not chidiac? REad my profile, I was working on several edits not just chidiac! thats what the issue is about isnt it? Please restore my profile as it used to be, I've been nice about this thus far - thankyou

Decline reason:

You have one final chance to address the primary issue: the absolutely and certainly coincidental fascination with one specific topic that is really the reasons for the block. A wise (and truly dedicated) editor would be able to explain how it would be possible for so many different editors from the same IP address to be focused on that specific article. An even wiser one would understand the evidence, admit it, and move on. We have been pretty nice about this so far - additional claims of vexatiousness will lead to removal of talkpage editing, which would prevent you from requesting further unblocks. I really recommend that you read the unblock policy - it's been quoted to you many times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Look, I really dont know how many others go through this IP address, and I'm being honest in logging in and being accountable for my edits. All I know is that I surf the web and have to use a proxy to do so, so maybe this is why the chidiac and whatever claim you seem to have that I am him makes sense? Hope you can understand more technically because I lack in that department. All I know is that I live in the same country/state as Chidiacs hometown. I know of the guy and have met him three times professionally, once was to get his ok to add personal information, the other two times were at professional association meetings. But again, I am NOT chidiac. I do not do this for commercial reasons and was not asked by Chidiac or anyone else to expand on the stub. I simply had information that I extracted from the gathering of news articles and wanted to start with that. As you can see I was working on other topics (Macau), (Digital Editing) etc. But my limited time and my behavioural need to finish something before I started on another thing is the reason for your allegation of unusual activity on subject. Imagine if I simply kept editing Macau exclusively to start with, would I be accused of being a country? Or maybe you also accuse me of being that TV show that chidiac had a part in if I made two or more edits. I'm sorry if this is coming in as misunderstood, Im not very technically minded - I just plug in my laptop and write when I can. You have made a false accusation and I am honestly telling you of my (non)affiliation with the subject but I had a need to finish something I started. It does not mean that I am the subject itself and you really need to get your facts straight on that one. Im sure chidiac wouldnt want me to say I was him either, so please, take the accusation away as it is completely false, restore my userpage, I dont mind if the article comes back into my userspace that i set up for it before I asked it to be published (one day it may become relevant enough for inclusion, until that day it took a lot of my time to get it together and I enjoyed the exercise, so I will use it as a template for future edits) and if you lift the block and resore my editing access, it would allow me to be a constructive editor of this community. I'd give it my best sot, but you would have to excuse me if I become obsessed with a particular subject, I may ensure I mitigate that next time. Thankyou

Decline reason:

You've had three independent reviews of this block, all with the same response; more will not be likely to be different. Therefore, I am disabling your access to this talk page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Fidler.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fidler.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TiuLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TiuLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]