User talk:Chrisottjr

License tagging for Image:Paulwall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paulwall.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Wolfmotherlicobob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wolfmotherlicobob.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfmother

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wolfmother on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Johnnyw talk 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from inserting any fan pictures into the Wolfmother article, deliberately doing so is preventing other editors from performing other - more valuable tasks - because they have to clean up your mess. Please be aware that continuing to do so will probably be considered as Vandalism. Thank you. --Johnnyw talk 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to insert images into articles with the intent to provoke, offend, or push a POV agenda, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - kollision 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me. I was simply putting a picture of Wolfmother on there and am a fan. It angers me that you think I'm trying to poke fun. - Chrisottjr 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Wolfmotherlicobob.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wolfmotherlicobob.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ciaraap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ciaraap.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of George W. Bush

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Coneslayer 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N Wall.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:N Wall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Nv8200p talk 04:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Look at Me (album). The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Immigrant.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Immigrant.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT (416) 03:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaulWall.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PaulWall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT (416) 03:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Cadillacdon.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Cadillacdon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed personal attacks

I removed some comments you made on User talk:Videmus Omnia. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but let's be clear here - Wikipedia's policy on only using free images is not Videmus Omnia's fault. He's just telling you about it. Don't blame him, please. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's helping out. You know, besides tagging unlicensed images, he actually has a wonderful page that explains how to get image permissions, the kind we can use: User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Basically, send an email to Cadillac Don/J-Money or their manager, explain that the Wikipedia has an article on them, and that we're the #9 web site in the world, and odds are fair they'll be glad to release a really good image. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the help, but why am I being blocked?? --Chrisottjr 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure; that wasn't me. Let me check with the blocking admin, hold on a bit. Or, better, while we chat, read the "requesting free content" page, and start getting an email to Cadillac Don's mgr ready! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGK's not being too specific, but let's just say you got a bit heated there for a moment. If you think you can manage to avoid calling people names and such, I can probably get him to agree to unblock you. OK? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Chrisottjr 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your most recent contributions still give cause for concern. Jpgordon declined your unblock request, so you proceeded to re-request it (against the instructions), stating your block reason as "I didn't ask you, Jpgordon" ... I'm just not confident enough in your being reformed to lift my block - my gut feeling is it's bad for the encyclopedia. Anthøny 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intentionally trying to re-request it. I was trying to respond to him, not re-request it. Think what you want. Just because you and I aren't agreeing doesn't mean that I'm going to harm the encyclopedia. You don't have to like me, but not liking me is not any type of justification. --Chrisottjr 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I really don't have to like jpgordon, but that's not cause for thinking I should stay blocked. --Chrisottjr 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Like" or "dislike" is irrelevant. I've never seen you before, and I've never read any of your edits other than the loathsome and crude personal attack you posted; the only reason I'm here is you requested the admin community at large review your block. That includes me. You're lucky it's just a 24 hour block. Sit it out, have an enjoyable day, and come back tomorrow. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a case of me liking you or not liking you - in fact, I don't have any thoughts on you at all, or I wouldn't be handling the AIV report, as I would appear bias. Instead, I'm instating technical measures to prevent you from further disrupting Wikipedia. Also, if you weren't trying to request an unblock (for the second time), then please don't use {{unblock}}; if you were trying to continue discussion, you should have done so under the original block template ... your mistake, not mine. I hope you've taken on board what I'm saying, and that when your block expires in ~23 hours, you're prepared to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, rather than disrupt it. Anthøny 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't biased, then you wouldn't be judging on your "gut feeling". I'm a pre-law student. I always argue a point. Just please stop talking, I get it, okay? I'm fully aware of the rules and have no intention of harming the encyclopedia. --Chrisottjr 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. I stepped away from Wikipedia for a few minutes, and... Chris, we don't have to like people, but we do have to be polite to them, or this "volunteer encyclopedia that everyone can edit" business doesn't work. Telling someone you don't like them usually isn't necessary either. Maybe JPGordon's idea is best, and a bit of a break will be good. Do you really have something you need to add that can't wait until tomorrow? Composing a good email to Cadillac Don and J-Money's management asking that they release an image under GFDL or CC-BY would be quite useful, and doesn't require editing. Can the other edits wait until tomorrow? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse seems to have a good idea. Chris - I also stepped away from the encyclopedia for a few minutes, and when I came back I realise I've been quite intense: I (and, I'm sure, Jpgordon as well) didn't have any intentions of "ganging up" on you, which it may look like. I'm simply saying - your contributions don't demonstrate somebody whose editing privileges I can allow to continue at this time. Anthøny 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care anymore. I'm heated over the fact that I was in the middle of a page edit when I discovered the block. So I've pretty much lost interest now. And I doubt I'll get in touch with Cadillac Don's manager. He won't ever respond. --Chrisottjr 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, sometimes they don't, but sometimes they do. I've gotten [[a couple of images from article subjects by writing them and asking (most of those are from others from Flickr, though). Actually Videus Omnia is probably the best person at getting images that way. Take a look at User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images, he's gotten lots and lots directly from article subjects, just that way he writes about. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 15:43, 10 August 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

User:AGK's not stating the instance where this happened

Decline reason:

This suffices. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 10 August 2007 (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.

It look like you were blocked for your comments on User talk:Videmus Omnia. It looks like there is a discussion going on over at AGK's talk page about the issue so I won't involve myself further. Best of luck, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Petrb. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Richard Floyd (Tennessee), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chrisottjr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]