User talk:Tmpafford

License tagging for Image:William h letterman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:William h letterman.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. 17:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:William h letterman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:William h letterman.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 a justification explaining 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. 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. BrownCow  (how now?) 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Go Texan Days

A tag has been placed on Go Texan Days 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in American Leadership Academy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on American Leadership Academy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because American Leadership Academy is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting American Leadership Academy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Tony Horton (trainer)

A tag has been placed on Tony Horton (trainer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tony Horton (trainer)

I have nominated Tony Horton (trainer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Horton (trainer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 September

A personal attack on me is not legitimate motivation for your willfully unconstructive edit to “Phi Kappa Psi”. If you persist in vandalism then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same edit was made from IP number 65.66.204.17. That IP number is presently assigned to mail.garzo.com. It's easy to learn to whom Garzo.com is registered. And we can even pin-down the middle initial of the registrant. Funny how his first initials and last name, run together, form “tmpafford”. Now, stop vandalizing Wikipedia, or you will be blocked from further editing. —SlamDiego_←T 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the IP number 65.66.204.17 can be firmly identified as used by you. Thus, the latest act of vandalism from that IP number is your act. —SlamDiego_←T 06:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this account is confirmed by checkuser to be a sockpuppeteer, do not remove the tag from the user page. Continuing to do so would be vandalism. —SlamDiego_←T 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your recent edits to “Phi Kappa Psi” (the first with your confirmed sockpuppet and the second with this account) are willfully unconstructive. These will simply contribute towards the case for blocking you. —SlamDiego_←T 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was dealing with an editor that refused to listen to reason and/or compromise

Decline reason:

Well, this is pretty moot now, per the below. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:29, 19 September 2008 (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.

There are better ways to go about dispute resolution. =\ I appreciate that you seem to be trying, but sometimes a little patience can go a long way in stressful situations. If it helps, remember that what the page shows a month or a year from now is far more important than what it happens to show right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you might want to represent this as a battle with me, your edits to “Phi Kappa Psi” were reverted by multiple editors; I'm simply the editor who has been most diligent. For months you ignored the fact that the issue had already been the subject of a mediation, and deleted the section anonymously; you didn't concede anything until you were identified as abusively using sockpuppets. When you did offer an argument, it was mostly just personal attack; the remainder had already been used and refuted in the mediation. You didn't propose any compromise; when you accepted that the section wouldn't stay deleted, you tried instead to bury it; that barely qualifies as a compromise. And your argument for this ostensible compromise was again nothing but personal attack and reïteration of an already exploded case. —SlamDiego_←T 22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slamdiego, this paragraph is the equivalent to graffiti on a building. Just because you have gone through mediation and convinced someone that it is now art does not justify it being in the article. The majority of the editors and third parties objesc on some level with the content, placement, and justification. My deletions were to an attempt to clean the graffiti from the page. It is my contnetion that your restorations are vandalism.

You did not prove any thing in the sockpuppet case other than that you are much better at working the system than I am. By the time I learned what you were doing, and how to defend myself from your attack, it was too late.Tmpafford (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're fond of insulting things as “graffiti” or “unreasonable” with either no principles to substantiate such claims, or purely ad hoc principles, which don't work in application to the rest of Wikipedia, and often don't even work when applied to the other sections of the article itself. No one argued that the section was art. You are willfully confusing the majority of editors with the majority who have bothered to comment. The vandalization of that section has been reverted by far more editors than have bothered to comment. You need to face-up to the fact that many editors have defended that section; I don't quite know why you actively cling to the delusion that you have only one opponent. As to your claims about what you thought you were doing, they are falsified by the manner in which you did it. Even though you've had a named account for more than two years, you made a practice of deleting the section anonymously from multiple IP numbers.

It's not a matter of my “working” the system at all, but simply of my catching you at it. That wasn't at all hard; I've busted people who were much less crude about things. —SlamDiego_←T 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tmpafford for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Since Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tmpafford has already made the case, this filing is really simply to get administrative action taken now. —SlamDiego_←T 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Kralizec! (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was putting three tildes instead of four.Tmpafford (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Psi: San Diego State controversy

Hello, I just received a news link that makes me believe that Phi Kappa Psi#San Diego State University can be removed. A section on the talk page has been created here: Talk:Phi Kappa Psi#Possible removal of San Diego State section. Please add your thoughts. NYCRuss ☎ 19:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Psi: University of Arizona controversy

This should stay on Phi Kappa Psi until some formal process, like an RfC is done. I'll generate that in a few minutes, and we'll have to wait for it to run its course over a month. Thanks, NYCRuss ☎ 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]