User talk:Wiarthurhu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive 1: through September 6, 2006

Contents

[edit] Terms of the agreement?

Wiarthurhu, could you explain to me how you believe this edit, this edit and this edit (amongst others) are compatible with your commitement to ...avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block? Thanks, Gwernol 12:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu was told specifically to avoid the articles and to defer the addition of pictures to other people - if people are not happy with his addition to the Wikiproject talk page, then perhaps an intermediate step could be created in his userspace that could be the area for finding such images? Would this be better? Cowman109Talk 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Though the first diff is a post to article talk and the second is a picture upload, the third is an edit to an aircraft engine article and seems to be a blatant violation of the terms. TomTheHand 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The third article is within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft, IMHO. In addition, I think we need to establish somewhere in userspace where he can propose his additions to the two WikiProjects or he needs to run it through an intermediary until things cool down like Cowman suggests. CQJ 16:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there isn't a flag on the talk page that's it's a designated project page, can't that be ok? Any problems with the edit BTW? It's an aircraft engine, not an aircraft. --matador300 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit itself seemed to be OK. I'm not a content expert on aircraft engines, so I'm not quite sure. Anyways, I think it would be best for you if you avoided anything "within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles", and that to me (and it seems like the community at-large believes this as well) would include things that have to deal with aircraft or automobiles that may or may not be tagged as belonging to that WikiProject. It would seem that you've done a good deal of research into education methods, perhaps that could be a focus area for you for a while until the three months passes on aircraft and automobiles? CQJ 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seems a lot friendlier there --matador300 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions for you....

Hey, Wiarthurhu. I've looked over some of your recent contributions, they look good, but there's some details you might want to take a look at, particularly on Core-Plus Mathematics Project. I tried to mess with it a little but I'm having a bit of a hard time concentrating on the subject material (and Wikipedia in general) today.

My concern is that what you've placed there is not exactly, but pretty close to a cut and paste job from the Project's website and it might be tagged as a copyright violation and summary deleted. I know in the past you've had some things nominated for AfD that haven't gone well, and I'm trying to head them off early in this circumstance. I'd recommend going back to look at some of the source material (not just from CPMP's website, but also from the critical reviews as well) and trying to develop the article just a little bit more.

Good work thus far. I work all weekend, but if you need something, make a short post on my talk page and I'll see it from my WAP browser and try to help out as best as I can.

Regards, CQJ 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you may want to expand some of your more recent contributions along the same lines as well. Let me know if I can help. CQJ 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. --matador300 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 Tomcat mediation

Hi, I don't know whether or not you noticed, but I recently offered to mediate that case. So anyways, after you've had a chance to think about it, please indicate, on the mediation page, whether you accept me as a mediator, and whether you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, if you haven't already, it might be a good idea to watchlist the page. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient history. I gave an arm and a leg to prove that I was right, and ended up getting banned for life for being impolite, I'm on probation just the same. --matador300 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry things didn't go well. In any case, I closed the (MedCom) case. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crapavan

Justification is at WP:IFD. The image is an orphan and has no use on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wasn't a very good image either. --matador300 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

It was an A1. One sentence and a couple of pix.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the justification for erasing it if I was just starting? You mean I have to write stub to keep guys like you erasing 2 hours worth of work? Who can I complain to? How would you like it if I erased everything you started? If I put it back, could you please leave it alone for a day? As I recall, it's certainly NOT grounds for speedy deltion. Have a nice day.--matador300 00:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored it as it is generally common practice to let school stubs remain. Cowman109Talk 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:3wayTailgate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:3wayTailgate.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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:1988ToyotaVan.jpg
Similar problem. I saw one yesterday with a ridiculous paint job in the middle of traffic. Very difficult to catch one, it would be better to replace it when a better image is available, it simply detracts to remove useful images when no replacement is yet available. --matador300 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. I replied on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking terms of being unblocked

It was recently brought to my attention that in Chevrolet Pickup 1955-57 you broke the terms of being unblocked by editing and adding images to an article that relates to cars on the 23rd of October. Could you reply as to why you did this? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 22:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that adding just an image would be OK since nobody ever complained about an image.--matador300 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the issue is that this was the reasoning for your previous block in the first place - editing articles related to cars and adding images to them. One of the images you added was a copyright violation as copyrighted film screenshots are used to comment on the film. The other image appears to be fine for the article, but nonetheless I ask that you refrain from editing articles related to cars for the remainder of the three months. Cowman109Talk 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The use of the image was to comment on the inclusion of cars in a movie, in effect it was used in a review of the movie, except in a section of an article. I don't think copyright rules distinguish between using a movie clip in a magazine article about a vehicle that talks about a movie, rather than requiring that it may only be used in a piece only if 50% or more of the article or that the content of the article must be mostly a movie review. Anyways I'll lay off for another month. --matador300 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite blocked

Evidence has shown that you are violating the terms of your unblock through sockpuppets such as User:Sugarcaddy and other IP addresses, so I have reinstated the community ban placed upon you before. This editing is inappropriate, so you have been indefinite blocked. Cowman109Talk 07:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Under what conditions can I be reinstated? According to the rules if I can operate without bothering anybody, there should be no reason for a block in the first place. --matador300 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but things don't look too good for hopes of unblocking. You blatantly violated the community ban using multiple sockpuppets to continue with the edits that got others upset in the first place, as checkuser has confirmed. I honestly have no more time for this, you can see if you can contact another administrator to review this, but you were community banned once and given strict restrains on your editing in return for being able to edit Wikipedia, but you have violated this trust. Cowman109Talk 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cowman109. You were community banned for severe disruption to Wikipedia. You then appealed the ban and were unblocked under clear terms, that you agreed to. Virtually your first edit on your return violated that agreement. You were then given yet another "second" chance. Now you have been caught blatantly violating the terms of your unblocking yet again. We have given you dozens of chances to show that you can be trusted and each time you have gone back on your word and continued to disrupt Wikipedia articles. It is clear that nothing you say can be trusted, and that you will continue your disruption under any and all circumstances. Therefore I strongly support the reimposition of your community ban. Please leave Wikipedia. Gwernol 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
And I concur with Gwernol and Cowman. You were given opportunity after opportunity to reform and to play nicely, you were given quite a few chances after behavior that could have gotten you blocked again was written off as "Well, he's not sure what the terms are, let's give him some time", and we trusted you not to circumvent things with a sockpuppet. I, sir, have gone through a great deal of assumption of good faith on your part, as have the two gentlemen who commented before me. As I have said before, I wish you the best of luck on whatever you choose to do, but you are most certainly not welcome to continue your efforts here. CQJ 17:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Now you see why us at Wikiproject automobiles were not in favor of letting him back. I could tell that he hadn't matured when he contaced me via YouTube and called me an evil geneous. Karrmann 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute. Who got upset? Breaking a rule alone shouldn't get somebody banned, it was making people upset at wonton destruction or something like that that requires somebody to get blocked from causing damage, and what damage has been caused? I don't recall that the agreement mentioned anything about sockpuppets, and I was trying to clear the wiarthurhu user name even when I could have used sugarcaddy. Clearly a lot of positive contributions have been made between then and now. The only complaints I've seen is posting a picture which nobody complained about in terms of the edit, and nobody has called for banning of edits made by either sugarcaddy or wiarthurhu, and neither user has received or given out much in the way of NPAs. All this would accomplish is punishing a person, rather than the intended purpose of preserving the integrity and quality of WP articles.

How's about a 3 month readonly block, no edits and no sock puppets, 3 months of posting pictures only, and 3 months normal if I cause no more conflicts than I have had undetected until sombody did this user check thing? I have had no clashes with any of the aggrieved users as either user name since the conditional block.

My son has a project where he needs to make a change in the world, and needs to be able to edit or create wikipedia articles and he has to use the same IP addresses that I use.

I've just taken a pile of airplane pictures at the Future of Flight museum, and what can I do with those? Can you allow me only to upload pictures and write on this page and designate a user to approve and put them into appropriate articles? If somebody starts to make defamatory edits about my actual person, or people that I know, how can I fix them if I'm banned? --matador300 07:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man, you blew your chance. You will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia, no more deals. I suggest you just leave Wikipedia. Karrmann 13:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you be able to upload the images to the Commons, or is that included in a block? IFCAR 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There you go! Upload them to the commons, and we can insert them into articles. And your son can join, as long as he doesn't treat us like Nazis like you did. Karrmann 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You had your chance - you were un-banned the last time with a set of clearly explained 'parole' rules. You broke at least two of those rule less than halfway through the parole period. Then you went and broke more Wikipedia rules - vis: sockpuppeteering and carried on your old, unacceptable, ways via your sockpuppets - thereby demonstrating that you are a not in the slightest bit likely to have learned from your first ban. Why would you expect anyone to trust you ever again? If you start messing with other Wiki projects (eg Commons), you'll be found out by your abusive behavior. Go away, stay away! SteveBaker 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Yeesh, I demonstrate I can edit for 3 months without abusing anybody. The edit pattern, and responses are completely different for either sugarcaddy or wiarthurhu compared to before the block. What old unacceptable ways? I proved that I could edit in an obtrusive way without invoking anybody's wrath unless somebody complained about spotting mere presence putting in a picture or resorting to a checkuser. Only a small percentage of edits were reverted by anybody. I challenge anybody to look at the list of edits and compute a percentage of harmful edits to postive contributions compared to anybody else who advocates an indefinite block.

The only justification for a block is to prevent damage to wikipedia or wikipedians, and none has been demonstrated to been created by either user since the block, only violating the artificial rules of the "parole". I'm just going through Les Miserables, and check out the cop that keeps on pursuing the guy who reforms his life even though he's quit doing bad things long ago. Please put a 3 month time limit on a total block, you can can my butt if I actually hurt anything or anybody 3 months from now. To get access for my kids, drop the IP block since check user can evidently sniff me out anyways. Anything else is just being mean, and while WP rules can be used for that purpose, that's not why the rules are there. Just do your job, no personal attacks, and we should be able to get along just fine. WP needs a lot of help in a lot of areas, especially people with expertise, and one of the biggest complaints about WP is that the moment somebody with any expertise shows up and starts shoving aside people with no expertise, they get banned, and that greatly affects the reliability of the articles if you keep ejecting people who are actually experts in the topics they write in. I've demonstrated that I can back off and move somewhere else before somebody gets upset since the block, and that isn't being considered here. --matador300 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be blind arthur. You made Wikipedia a living hell for many people, the admins, Wikiproject avaition, Wikiproject Aircraft, adn you continued that through your sockpuppets when you were allowed back. Yeah, I will talk to CQJ and them, because I don't want your kids to suffer from your mistakes, and they will be more than welcome to edit here. But you on the other hand, are not. Allow this gentleman to escort you to the door. Karrmann 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You agreed to a set of terms (you even proposed some of them yourself) and you didn't stick to them. The terms only lasted for three months - you didn't even get half way. You had your second chance and you blew it. Now you want a third chance with yet more terms? I don't think so. Wikipedia depends on trust. We have to trust people not to abuse the system. You are an adult - you were told the rules and conditions and you broke them. Why on earth do you think we'd ever trust you again? Honestly? SteveBaker 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you compare yourself to Jean Valjean, seeing as how his crime was out of necessity, and he never set the terms of his parole, he simply broke it when he was treated harshly. Besides, this block was to stop you from getting the camel's nose into the tent, think of what society would be like if breaking of the law or your word was that casual.

And your comment about people with expertise getting booted off, I haven't seen any of that, because most people who have any expertise know to cite their sources, and know to use reliable sources, they wouldn't have been able to get through school for say, aeronautical engineering without said skills. LWF 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've basically been banned for life for trying to correct that a) The Navy's primary air superiority fighter wasn't an air superiority fighter b) every book web and print source open to the public stated that the Acclaim replaced the K car, not the Shadow/Sundance c) the AMC Matador was best known for it appearance on Adam-12, a fact noted by thousands of hits on google on many websites, magazine articles, and books, while a single appearance of a car that is not even a Yugo on the Simpsons is allowed elsewhere .

Another guy was hounded out for basically trying to oppose a youth who insisted that a certain eastern europan car was a "piece of crap that everybody hates" and replace it with NPOV fact, but this youth is an expert, along with many of the my complainants in using WP rules to get people ejected instead of working together to construct an NPOV article that was factually correct with the help of an actual expert on the topic. It shouldn't be impossible to fix fairly basic and well documented facts like this without getting banned for life.

Just about everybody who has complained against me has had a long history of NPA attacks on me, uncivil behavior, language, removal of sourced edits, and attempts and statments of intent to get me blocked, which is precisely the sort of behavior that the rules say are not to be tolerated, yet my 1 week block was turned indefinite for ONE indirect crack that a youth did not realize my stealth name was exactly the same as my previous signature. My 3 month block is turned indefinite not because of any edits that caused anyone any upset, but by demonstrating that I could change my editing habits to the point that nobody noticed for 3 months.

Look at the "wikipedia sucks" pages, and they all point to this problem. You don't have problems with people who revert every cited reference to something as obvious as the F-14 was created to be a maneuverable fighter, and the F-111B was killed because it was not a maneuverable fighter, yet you have to keep out somebody who for 3 months has managed to edit even cars and airplanes without much of a peep from anybody until I posted two pictures. --matador300 18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wanna hear it. You were blocked for forcing your edits down people's throats, directly insulting editors (Like how you insulted me in that above passage) and being constantly incivil. So shut up, and leave WIki[edia. No more deals, no more storied abotu how we are nazis and how you are Jesus, and no more words from your mouth. Go away and stay away! Karrmann 19:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everything that needs to be said to Wiarthurhu has been said. So let's not feed the troll by continuing to post on the one page he can still edit. SteveBaker 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Karmann has just proven my point on what kind of people Wikipedia wants more of, and what kind they shouldn't be ejecting.
Please remove the IP block because a) I don't work at that site anymore and b) it's a big corporation where lots of people share the IP. Again, you'll be able to sniff me out. I'll take a self-inflicted no edit, no sock puppet break for 3 months for breaking the rules, but you should change the block from an unjustified indefinite period to 3 months because I HAVE changed my editing habits substantially. Too bad I can't say the same for my friends here though. --matador300 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, you broke the rules of your unblock once already, after already stating you would abide by them. There is no reason why anyone should believe you a second time, after you have already shown yourself to be untrustworthy. The blocking policy for wikipedia is there fore good reason, and by breaking the terms of your initial unblock you have given the administrators ample reason to institute an indefinate block. I would suggest you stop arguing and leave it rest, as I find it highly unlikely that your arguing is going to change anything - indeed I would say it would be solidifying the position of any administrator who would support an indefinate block. If, as you said before, you have a son who wishes to contribute to wikipedia for a school assignment - let him write it out as a word document and take it to school where he can simply copy and paste the information into the appropriate article. ViridaeTalk 08:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing is for sure, insulting me won't get your editing privlages back any sooner. Karrmann 11:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change in behavior

No insults or personal attacks intended. I only point out if that if the point is to promote civility and punish incivility, administrators look the other way for some people who use uncivil language and threaten to, and succeed in getting several people blocked all the time. It is considered a personal attack to threaten or wish a block on someone, yet this happens all the time with most of my complainants. Yet they punish very severely punish people for very minor infractions that that they don't like. I have never threatened to get anyone blocked since the block, and I have never resorted to uncivil language with anyone since the block, and I have provoked very few instances of uncivil language against me. Merely editing articles such as the Future of Flight Museum, Honda Accord or VW or Chevrolet pickup truck hardly amount to a campaign of chaos against innocent WP users.
I read that WP policy is that if a user demonstrates a change in behavior, a block should be reconsidered, yet no administrator here has noted or observed that there has been a very large change in behavior - no one responsed to any of my edits for months without the use of checkuser, and most reverts were left unchallenged by me. These people are complaining only about my very presence, and that should not be justification for the poor treatment, personal attacks, and calls for punishment by everyone here.
Please drop the IP block as I don't even work at that site anymore and it will only harm people at a large multiuser site. I promise to not edit or even sockpuppet for 3 months, and you'll be able to sniff me out as you have demonstrated. WP rules are not to punish or to be mean to people, they are to prevent interference or damage to WP, and I have demonstrated that these things haven't happened since the start of the block. WP administrators should demonstrate that they are capable of fair, even handed justice despite what many people have written about the way justice is usually handed on on WP. --matador300 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
IP autoblocks end after 24 hours after they are triggered by the user they belong to automatically. As for you, you won't be unblocked by an administrator at this rate, to put it bluntly. It is nonetheless inappropriate for these people to continue talking to you in this manner, so I ask them to stop, but if you would like to appeal your block you can prepare an arbitration case here on your page, and I can copy and paste it onto WP:RFAR if it is completed. Further statements could be posted here on your talk page, and if the page is accepted, your block could be potentially lifted only to edit the evidence page and no other parts of Wikipedia. As was stated earlier, you have indeed been causing difficulty whether you believe it or not, and the reason a checkuser was done in the first place was because your other account was exhibiting disruptive behavior similar to that which you have done in the past. The issue is more of community trust - the point of the unblock was to determine if you could stay within the constraints given, but you violated that by editing the pages you were specifically banned from editing per the banning policy. So, at the moment the only option is to request an arbitration committee appeal. Cowman109Talk 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What disruptive patterns?

What disruptive patterns are you speaking about? --matador300 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TO APOLLOBOY: WIARTHURHU SYNTHPOP BAND??

Where did you get the interesting name for this band???? It is spelled just the same as my wikipedia user name. --matador300 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, after how immaturely and childish you acted, expect to be lampooned. Karrmann 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I can name my band almost anything I want, and I'm not using the band to attack you, so relax. --ApolloBoy 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restart and extension of ban duration when evasion is attempted

Shouldn't this apply rather than an indefinite ban? --matador300 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended when a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer will be reset from four more days remaining to ten days remaining. If the user doesn't subsequently evade his ban, it will last a total of sixteen days.

You were unblocked from an indefinate ban in order to have the 3 month probationary period. You broke rules of your probation so the indefinate ban was reinstated. How do you propose to extend or restart an indefinate ban? ViridaeTalk 07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That would reset the 3 month ban to another 3 month ban from airplanes and cars. A total block on all articles would not seem appropriate since I have generated formal disputes ONLY from those two areas, and from the few users whose editing style and civility in language matches that of the aircraft editor I had disputes with. If there are concerns in other areas, I have not been notified, and would appreciate some details on what I have done other than the unjustified concerns of Steve Baker below, which exemplify the problem of somebody more concerned with attacking somebody than whether or not positive contributions were made. There are significant holes in coverage in Chevrolet pickups, I created both entries for chevy pickups from the 1940s to 1950s, but have received only grief for doing so. Again, the important point is that for most of the 3 months, there was a significant change in behavior, and significant reduction in conflicts, though still not to the satisfaction of some complainants. Suffering a ban for a further 3 months from the two areas for rule breaking is justified. A total block from ALL areas does not seem to be justified as it has not shown how has, or this is going to cause harm. --matador300 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Look - you landed an indefinite ban...that means forever. GO AWAY! SteveBaker 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '57 Pickup Truck

So Steve Baker was behind getting me kicked out again over THIS??? The article wasn't created to enrage anybody, it was created because it was the only vehicle in Cars (movie) that didn't have an article, and it's a significant ommission. The sentence in the article was stubbed from the Hemmings magazine with enough bibliography to enable somebody else to include more information. The Chevrolet pickup trucks do not have a single "blanket" article covering all generations, like the Ford F-series which somebody should create, but I won't be the one able to do this. Instead of giving credit for improving the article and posting a very good quality original picture put into the public domain, all Mr. Baker cares about is a hostile personal attack on a fellow wikipedian over a basically constructive edit, and the administrator could not find any prior improper edits. Copyright rules say that screen shots are fine in a review of a movie, and they are widely used in other articles linking cars to the movie cars. Stating that a vehicle was used in a movie is effectively a small review of the movie.

The Wikpedia rules are written so that sufficiently large number of people can easily get other people banned for behaviors that are significantly less aggressive and destructive than that of the people who are doing the complaining in terms of personal attacks and abusive behavior. I encountered only one such offensive editor in aircraft, but a dozen on automobiles, and under current administrative rules, such users are given safe harbor, and it is quite impossible to defend oneself againt uncivil language personal attacks and threats to blocks as long as they have the favor of the admininstrators, while I'm going to be kicked out basically for posting a single picture, and uncovering another username which did not generate any complaints that I ever saw, during which period I have exhibited almost none of these destructive behaviors. The only "personal attacks" on this page since then are to observe the use of personal attacks, uncivil language and threats and attempts to block and other violations of wikipedia rules. By the rules I've seen, these do NOT constitute personal attacks. Calling edits poor, worthless, vandalism or nonsense would be an attack, which have been done my most of the people who have disputes lodged against me, but have never resulted in anything worse than a warning. Observing that another user is breaking wikipedia policies is NOT an attack. As far as I can tell, the only "disruptive behavior" was to include mention of a car that was in two movies (common on many articles) that was called disruptive by one person. So be it, if that's that way WP wants to play the game, I can't set the rules. --matador300 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But you did "set the rules". You were indefinitely banned. You then proposed a set of rules under which you agreed to edit if we lifted the ban and these were largely accepted by the community. Your second edit after the ban was lifted broke the rules you had agreed to. Since then you have repeatedly broken those rules - your own rules - and used sockpuppets to attempt to circumven them further. You gave your word that you would abide by the rules and broke them repeatedly. How do you expect us to react? We gave you another "second" chance and you spat in our faces. There is no way you will be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, since you have shown nothing but contempt for the people who trusted you (myself included) and you have clearly demonstrated that any and every assurance that you give is utterly worthless. Gwernol 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I complained that you had clearly broken the conditions of your three month ban. Conditions that you not only agreed to - but actually proposed yourself. I wanted the first indefinite ban to stick - keeping you out of Wikipedia forever. I was not happy that you were allowed back - even under three month probation and under those terms. However, I accepted them - on the assumption that if you could have made it through three months without a single infraction - then that would indicate that you had perhaps genuinely decided to mend your ways. However, you broke those terms - clearly and beyond all doubt - by editing an automotive article as you had agreed not to do - so I reported your lack of remorse rather than covering it up. You also sockpuppeted (I knew nothing of that) - which is a serious offense (doubly so since this was clearly an effort to avoid your probation rules) and you upset yet more people. It can only be concluded that you had not changed your ways - indeed, you have added sock-puppeteering to your other list of anti-social behaviors. So now we can't trust you - and anything you say is as likely to be insincere as it was the last time and the time before. If we allowed you back we'd just have to expend a ton more effort in watching, tracking and (in all likelyhood) creating more appeals and requests for bans. Your occasional useful contributions were by far outweighed by the upset you caused to good Wikipedians - I for one was unable to contribute useful material to the encyclopedia for over a month while we were continually fixing up problems you cause and arguing with you over trivia. You caused one of our most productive Automotive guys to leave Wikipedia altogether - which more than erases your use to the community. Your presence here is a strong negative on our ability to produce an encyclopedia - so I for one will oppose your return at every possible opportunity. I'll do so calmly and politely and within the rules - but I'm not going to let any appeal from you pass. I'll do this because I want to write encyclopedia articles and not have to do 'junk' activities like writing this diatribe. So - please just go away and find some other hobby. You just aren't welcome here anymore. SteveBaker 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It would only make sense to do a ban on cars and airplanes since those are the only areas that caused action on the part of those expert in getting people expelled, even though those supporting the expulsion are enaged in a consistent pattern of uncivil language, uncivil behavior, and actions openly with the objective of getting somebody blocked. Merely adding pictures from movies (or high quality picture of models) hardly justifies being "enraged" on the part of a fair minded person, and the entire history of the sockpuppet doesn't show anything that was called disruptive other than documenting a pickup that didn't have documentaiton. If a sockpuppet were actually causing problems and complaints, THAT certainly justifies a lifetime ban, but the benign nature of the edits should show a significant change in behavior, but instead shows that the complainants only care about kicking somebody down. Now that I notice that the person allegedly driven out had asperger syndrome, something that describes some of the things that I do, it also explains why his interactions largely resembled my interactions with Mmx whom I was sanctioned for observing similar behavior patterns. As much as it looks like the entire world was against me, it is in fact a very small percentage of the people I have intereacted with as edits, the vast majority of people on WP have treated me very civilly. It is disappointing that editors who show a pattern of using WP rules to eject people as quickly as possible as a matter of conflict resolution should be backed by administrators while people who have spent 2 months not offending anybody except by their mere presence and activity, and past history are driven out. --matador300 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You were banned from articles on cars and airplanes, and you violated that ban. See the Wikipedia:Banning policy. This discussion is getting nowhere. If you would like to appeal the ban, prepare an arbitration case here and I will transfer it to the arbitration page, but you won't be unblocked by any other way. And once again, can people stop replying here? This is highly unproductive. There is no need to taunt Wiarthurhu. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Last Words

  • Please don't delete this user for at least 3 months to show that I can stick around without damaging anything for at least that long.
  • As far as I can tell, putting up fair-use pictures for a movie review of Open Season was the main reason for an indefinite ban, plus a sockpuppet that created the article, but would not be banned for any conduct of that user alone. For my reference, is this the case, or did anybody besides Steve Baker get enraged with my conduct??
  • Doesn't violating a ban call for extending the ban rather than a lifetime block?? It does not appear I did any other harmful conduct besides making making a good-faith insertion of a picture with no intent to harm or enrage.
  • I'll try the arbitration in 3 months. Right now everybody seems too grouchy to deliver anything resembling fair treatment. --matador300 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Accounts cannot be deleted unless a developer decides to go into the database and remove an account manually. You won't be unblocked except by an arbitration committee ruling, though, as community bans are final unless an administrator comes along and disagrees with the block for some reason. This has been discussed to death, though, so either go for the arbitration case or, simply put, you have no chance of getting unblocked otherwise. Cowman109Talk 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:HP300 300.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HP300 300.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:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Sherool (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a note on the image to check here if you wish to dispute this seeng as you can't edit the image talk while blocked. --Sherool (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiarthurhu is indefinitely blocked - so I doubt he'll be of much help here. A note in the edit history for that image says: "Stan Seiler http://www.sieler.com/hp300, permission granted for Wikipedia" - but I would note that this is not sufficient permission to make the image acceptable unless fair use can be applied here because Wikipedia is 'Open' and that means that other people need to have the right to mirror our content. The fact that Wikipedia has the right to use the image is insufficient to allow it's use here. So, sadly, we have to fall back on good old "fair use"...and it's hard to know whether that applies here or not. SteveBaker 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/a/User_talk%7EWiarthurhu_a7d1.html"