User talk:Drtyrell

Proposed deletion of Mark S Lowe

Hello, Drtyrell. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Mark S Lowe, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Mark S Lowe to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tales of A Ratt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tales of A Ratt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Talk page of the deleted article were "This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because...this is being posted at the request of the author Bobby Blotzer and is not a copyright infringement. I'd like to know how these accusations are leveled within minutes with no proof or clear malus. Multi-platinum artists should be able to document their accomplishments in references. There are countless books of the same nature all over wikipedia.". Firstly with regard to posting material at the request of someone else, please see WP:COI. Secondly, the proof was in the supplied link to the page whose footer says "©Copyright 2010-2013 Bobby Blotzer. All Rights Reserved."; the text above the Wikipedia editing window says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". Wikipedia does not exist for anyone, multi-platinum or otherwise, to document their achievements or to sell their products. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but I'm going to add to this page, and hope that's the right thing to do in order to conclude my points. Bobby Blotzer isn't attempting to violate his own copyright in any way. The date on his website is in reference to the electronic assets on that website and not n reference to his book that was published some years earlier. If there are more formal procedures that need to be completed, we'd be more than happen to fax something etc.

If there is a policy of not mentioning or referencing items that happen to be for sale, then I'd like to apply for fellowship for Wikipedia to help correct this injustice. There are literally thousands of DVDs, books, and other items referenced by folks who have created such products that need to have their references removed to comply with the COI policies of Wikipedia. I will work tirelessly to veto these references, pages, links, etc. until they're all gone. I want Wikipedia to be a clean COI free zone for everyone. I had no idea this policy existed. Please advise on how I can apply and get started.

There is a Wikipedia policy about verifiable Notability: in this case, see WP:NBOOK. And a policy on text that is under copyright: see WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark S Lowe

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mark S Lowe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tales Of A RATT.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Tales Of A RATT.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Bobby Blotzer In Concert 2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bobby Blotzer In Concert 2013.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your recent edits to Ratt could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. HighInBC 02:03, 19 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a representative of the single controlling shareholder of the RATT musical band which is owned by the WBS Corporation. The group that is consistently misrepresenting themselves as the official RATT brand (now modified in description) is editing the official link rattwebsite.com to appear as a non-official brand. WBS Inc. has the only legal right to use the RATT brand at all without written consent from WBS. I was tasked with making sure that this legal control over the brand was communicated on Wikipedia. Not to YOUR organization but to those who would attempt to steal our brand. TheRattPack.com is a website of the former record company Atlantic. We have given them permission to keep the URL operational, but not to indicate to the world that they are the "official" anything. Right now they have modified the only official link to appear unofficial.

What is your policy for folks that visit topics like CocaCola and attempt to change coke.com to their non-coke website?

If you need our attorney to send a written letter confirming anything I've indicated above, please provide a link to an address or email, and we'll provide you notarized proof of our claims.

Thank you in advance.

Drtyrell (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to be unblocked, you need to withdraw your legal threats. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (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.

More than happy to make any necessary modifications. It is not clear how this done being entirely blocked at this point. Drtyrell (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was told to remove my "legal notice" comment to be unblocked. No problem. However, I don't understand how to remove something that has already been removed. I'm not allowed to make any changes anywhere save this Talk page. It would appear that the disputed note I placed in my post has been removed from the page. I've only made a hand full of edits my entire life, and don't plan on making ANY further changes to ANY page moving forward. However, blocking my IP means you're blocking my entire company that uses this router. If you could at a minimum block my account, but not the IP, that would be very helpful. Drtyrell (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Since you have made it clear that you will pursue your legal dispute only through other means,not via Wikipedia, the reason for the block no longer applies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an unequivocal statement here on this talk page that you withdraw all legal threats, that should suffice - other comments elsewhere can be removed later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I hereby nullify all legal related statements from my posts. Any and all legal concerns will be addressed / resolved outside this website. No mention of such matters will be made in any future post past or present. Thank you for bringing me up to date on your policies. It wasn't my intent to violate them in any way. Drtyrell (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]