User talk:Copperchair

Archives:

This arbitration case has closed. You are banned indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. You are on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. These provisions are to be enforced, should you break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above). You may appeal this to the Committee or to User:Jimbo Wales, who has the power of veto over remedies and enforcement.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block for violation of ArbCom ruling

For violating your ArbCom ruling, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Details available here. — Phil Welch 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand English?

It's becoming more and more clear to me that it's quite possible that you don't. You edit-war and are chastised for it, but you insist you're in the right and continue. A number of editors bring you up on an RfC, which is overwhelmingly against your behaviour, but you insist you're in the right and continue. Your case then becomes an RfAr, in which the ArbCom votes 8-0 that you are banned indefinitely from editing anything related to Star Wars, but apparently, you believe you're in the right and continue. You are then blocked for violating this ban, and what do you do when the block expires? You immediately restore your previous edit, exactly as before.

All this, to say nothing of your continued "sanitation" of your Talk page. It is becoming readily apparent that your efforts on the Internet would be better focused elsewhere. Please give some serious thought to leaving Wikipedia, before you are forced out without a choice as a result of your continued disruption.--chris.lawson 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maru and I have blocked you again. I won't ask you to leave, but I will ask you to think about what you're doing here and whether it's really for the good of the project—or, in fact, whether it'll accomplish *anything*. —Phil Welch 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year blocking

By the power vested in me as an administrator and by your probation, and because of your continued (6!) violations of the Arbcom ruling that on your fifth edit (this recent one was your sixth: [1]) to a Star Wars article, you would be blocked for a year. Well, we forebore, and only blocked for a week on #5, but you had to go and edit again. Don't bother continuing blanking this talk page; we'll simply semiprotect and indef block any sock puppets. --maru (talk) contribs 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked for 366 days for violating the agreements that were recently made relating to Star Wars pages. --Deckiller 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just protect this already

I am sure the restore I'm doing right now makes well over 100 restorations, by various individuals, of Copperchair's contemptuous and contemptible blanking of this page. It's obvious Copperchair has no intention of listening to anyone on any subject whatsoever, or contributing to this project in any way that can remotely be construed as constructive or collaborative. People have been banned for six months or longer for less, with a lot more substantive good edits to their credit. Just hard-ban Copperchair and lock this page already. There hasn't been any point in doing anything else with this individual for a long, long time. PurplePlatypus 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The Wookieepedian 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reason to hurry. He has one ban left, and then he's banned for a year, which with autoblocks and such usually ends the issue. --maru (talk) contribs 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd like an explanation for why this page was being reverted and why it is protected. Users have the right to edit their talk pages and blank them if they like. They can't remove vandalism warnings, etc, but everything else is fair game. I'm unprotecting unless some really good policy points are brought up that I'm missing. - Taxman ^Talk 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving is one thing. Reverting it back to the stone age to give the appearance of a clueless newbie is another, but what the hell let's see what happens. — Mar. 7, '06 [21:20] <freakof nu r_x ture |talk

The above is precisely why this keeps being reverted. Copperchair is blanking his talk page to sanitise it and make it appear he is completely innocent. The ArbCom warning needs to stay there, along with associated warnings for behaviour, as long as the behaviour remains unresolved. There is ample precedent for this, and I've been saying this for something going on eight months now.--chris.lawson 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the rest of it doesn't matter, including this conversation, but you can't blank or remove the arbcom warning, per the blocking policy. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page protections

To my way of thinking, when one is blocked from editing Wikipedia, one is blocked from all the pages, including this one, even if the blocking method allows editing of one's talk page. I can't imagine that there are any more legitimate issues to discuss with Copperchair, so perhaps we should protect this page? --maru (talk) contribs 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no qualms about protecting his page for a period of time equal to his ban. If he has the need to communicate with administrators, he can e-mail them.--chris.lawson 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way - is there any realistic hope of him doing anything constructive with his access to this page? Even when he was bothering to communicate at all, the best you got out of him were promises he didn't end up keeping. I have yet to see the slightest sign of good-faith communication of any kind on Copperchair's part. (Sometimes he'll give his reasons for things, but that's certainly not to be mistaken for a sign that those reasons are, in his mind, open to discussion.) PurplePlatypus 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I'll wait for one more editor to weigh in, and if they agree (which would make four of us), I'll protect. --maru (talk) contribs 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Protect. User:Dschor's talkpage has been protected, why not this..? -Zero^Talk 11:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I'm gonna protect it now. --maru (talk) contribs 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

Hi, I don't really have any connection with this issue, but it's fairly obvious you're just purposely violating your arbcom ban. Please just stick to articles you're not banned from and we'll all be happier. - Taxman ^Talk 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Greedoshootsfirst.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greedoshootsfirst.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.

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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Anakinunmasked.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anakinunmasked.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Blofeld.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Blofeld.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Addhoc (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Countries of Central America

A tag has been placed on Template:Countries of Central America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles before AD 601 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battles before AD 601. Since you had some involvement with the List of battles before AD 601 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair

Archive