Jump to content

User talk:EverettTheUrban

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ward (web serial) (April 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs better sourcing from mainstream news sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, EverettTheUrban! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ward (web serial) (April 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bilorv was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: As you say, web serials don't typically get mainstream news coverage. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything that exists, only things which meet our strict notability criteria. The content you have written can be used on other sites instead, such as Wikia, which hosts fan wikis without any standard of notability.
— Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xi Jinping Poohbear comparison meme.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Xi Jinping Poohbear comparison meme.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free Content

[edit]

I have reverted your edit here. Non-free content may only be used when all of the non-free content criteria are met. Please see WP:NFCC#10c. A separate rationale must be provided for each use of the image. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted your edit, there's legitimate grounds for the image to be there. Don't touch it againEverettTheUrban (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read the POLICY linked above. You MUST provide a rationale for each use. You have not provided any rationale for its use in the Pooh article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EverettTheUrban, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

EverettTheUrban, good luck, and have fun. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, EverettTheUrban, I've re-deleted the Lord Buckethead pictures you uploaded. According to the source website, they have not been explicitly released into the public domain by the copyright holder (which in this case would be the photographer); published works are automatically protected by copyright, so the images would have to be *explicitly* released into the public domain to qualify as a PD upload. Since they aren't public domain, your copyright rationale was incorrect, and they also haven't been explicitly released under terms compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, so Wikipedia cannot host them as free images at all. Please don't attempt to upload the images again; copyright is a confusing mess, and it's perfectly okay to make occasional mistakes, but insisting on mistakes like this is serious, and will lead to a block from editing. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Buckethead in a chair.jpeg. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. Whpq (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lord Buckethead with other candidates.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Edit-warring to add non-free images to articles despite the lack of a rationale for use in the article not very collaborative. I won't bother reverting again, but don't be surprised if some other editor removes those images. Whpq (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a rationale for including the images, hence why they are being continuously readded. They are relevant to the articles.EverettTheUrban (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A separate non-free usage rationale must be provided on the image description page for each article it is to be used in. You have not provided such rationales. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the one article. EverettTheUrban (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for having violated the 3 revert rule. If so many different editors disagree with you, the response should not be to edit war with them. El_C 18:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't offer a legitimate reason for reverting my edits, nor did they elaborate on my talk page or the article's.EverettTheUrban (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That, in itself, is not an exemption from the rule. El_C 18:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the rule, then - but as far as I saw at the time it was no different from just blanking sections of text. A block wasn't necessary, if someone had a problem they were welcome to pull their finger out and speak with me on my talk page or in the article as I offered. EverettTheUrban (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I acted with good faith, no comprehensible explanation was given for the reversion of my edits so I rolled them back as anyone would. Don't view that as a good reason to block me when I'm making an effort to contribute and add more content to the project.

Decline reason:

As noted above, that is not a defense to edit warring. Instead of continually reverting, you should engage in talk page discussion. If the other party continues to revert, there are proper channels to address that without edit warring yourself. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Perhaps I had misinterpreted the rule, then - as far as I saw at the time it was no different from just blanking sections of text and I was just acting to correct it. A block wasn't necessary, if someone had a problem they were welcome to pull their finger out and speak with me on my talk page or in the article as I offered. Maybe my tone is a little sharp on this but if someone had a damn problem they should've spoken to me instead of screwing with a reasonable edit - I'm sorry if that gets taken as a personal affront. From my perspective I'd given them a chance to speak with me and they didn't, so at the time I felt I had done what I could reasonably be expected to do. I do not feel that a block is a proportionate response here.

Decline reason:

Your second unblock request is no better. What you are saying isn't a defense to edit warring. After being reverted the first time, you should have proposed the edit on the talk page, and established a consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm still figuring out editing on this place and being honest I didn't even know what to say on the talk page, ie I couldn't understand how to word it or even what I should word. The reversions to the edits at the time made it unclear so I had obly acted in good faith. As I said before, a block was not necessary or proportionate. If people were to have pointed me in the right direction then fair enough, but this came without explaining to me the issue. I was even about to make a brief comment on the talk page but it came too late as I got banned. Very unhelpful and counterproductive when I'm trying to do some bloody good.

Decline reason:

I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned. "If people were to have pointed me in the right direction". What? You mean like this? Or like this (admittedly, this was later removed because you had already received a warning). It's your responsibility to read about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I gave serious consideration to extending your block to 48 hours or even indefinitely, to give you a chance to read up on all of these before you returned to editing. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm referring to the issue of the Encyclopedia Dramatica page, not the others. I answered those accordingly on their respective discussion sections. Do not threaten me with a bogus block, Yamla. I have been acting with good intentions in mind

Decline reason:

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.

Ah ha ha, I hadn't looked at the image. For the record, had I done so, I'd probably have excused myself out of reviewing the unblock request. Well, now I'm curious why the fixation on me, too. I'm not aware of any previous interactions with this user. --Yamla (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would've included the standard wikipedia article on ED but if you check for yourself it's filled with NSFW content. The Yamla article on the other hand was relatively clean, but demonstrated the satire/antipathy directed towards the project so it came up useful. EverettTheUrban (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this is basically WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. The problem is the lack of secondary sourcing. As the policy says, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to ignore this unsolicited advice. Your block is (currently) only for 24 hours. There are no article updates so important that they cannot wait a day to be done. Withdraw your unblock request and use that time to think about what you did wrong, and how you will handle a similar situation in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

How am I a sockpuppet? I've been trying to contribute to the damned project for fuck's sake. I genuinely wanted to do some good.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ≥Huon (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

That's a canned response, I've made actual contributions to the project and have been trying to do some genuine good. Give me an actual, human answer. What threat of 'damage' so I allegedly pose? This is asinine.

Decline reason:

You created an account to valdalize Wikipedia as part of a group "raid" several years ago. You were blocked for it and then threaten to sock when your unblock attempts did not work. You then created a new account without linking it to your old account ("socking"). This account has been used for silly vandalism (as part of a group again), adding copyrighted text, edit warring at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (video game) where you threatened other editors, uploading images with questionable NFCC and edit warring over them at Winnie-the-Pooh‎ and Lord Buckethead, and, of course, uploading an image of an attack page since you found it was blocked by the blacklist. Since this is your 12th unblock request, I think the talk page removal was for the best. Kuru (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2019 (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.

Hmm. I missed all the nonsense with your other socks at Zombiedude101 (talk · contribs), which led to this and explains your Yamla fetish. I'm presuming you're a large part of the nonsense coming from this range, given your unblock request there. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked as you aren't eligible for unblock consideration here, and as you have been explicitly trying to harm Wikipedia by violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Another admin will be along shortly to review this request. --Yamla (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24980 was submitted on Apr 29, 2019 12:11:42. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27033 was submitted on Oct 07, 2019 13:20:42. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EverettTheUrban&oldid=920279617"