User talk:Dam!ta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Dam!ta/Archive1 User talk:Dam!ta/Archive2 User talk:Dam!ta/Archive3

No need to be bitter. Its just wikipedia. I'll wait.Dam!ta 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked for two days, then all of a sudden Yamla unfairly blocked me for seven days. For what reason? As I said once before, he is doing this on purpose. And is over using his powers. It's not fair. Yesterday my ban said it would expire, today, then when I clicked on, If you would like to know when the block will expire, please search for your name or IP on the block list.', it said on the 14th.

I'm reporting this unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org, and any other person I can find that I can contact. I don't think he should be in charge of banning anyone, when he is misusing it like this.

[1] Dam!ta 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel we should ignore your continued image copyright and fair-use violations? You have been warned about this behaviour over and over again. You have been blocked three separate times. You were unblocked once because you claimed you would stop this behaviour and then you simply continued. We gave you the benefit of the doubt but you have refused to change your behaviour. The block is entirely legitimate and I am sorry you feel persecuted. --Yamla 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block for one week was due to your immediate violations of Wikipedia copyright and fair-use policies upon the expiry of your previous block. This was explained to you when the block was placed. You have been given far more warnings (at least ten warnings, though it looks like closer to twenty) than are required and I have spent a great deal of time explaining exactly what you are doing wrong and pointing out the policies you are violating. We simply cannot accept your continued abusive behaviour. --Yamla 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Truth is... 2 Sorry 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Fergiecover.jpg 4 Blocked 5 Blanking 6 Adina Howard

[edit] Truth is...

First of all, I was banned for TWO DAYS yesterday, you ignored the topic at hand. Please do not respond to my request, I would like someone else to. All of a sudden I'm banned for a week? It was not like this yesterday, since when do you have the right to decide that after you ban someone for two days, well let me go ahead and ban them for a week instead a day later? It's further proof that you watch every single thing that I do, purposely.

Your block log shows a 24 hour block on 2006-07-31 at 12:28:13. You were unblocked on 2006-07-31 13:19:11 because you claimed to understand image requirements. You were blocked for 48 hours on 2006-08-03 9:46:04 for continuing to violate Wikipedia copyright and fair-use policies. This block expired 48 hours later. you were then blocked for 1 week on 2006-08-07 9:22:11. You are incorrect when you state that you were blocked for two days yesterday. The block log clearly shows this is not the case. The only time I changed my mind was when I unblocked you on July 31st. --Yamla 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stupid! I know what I saw. You went ahead and blocked me for a week more.Dam!ta 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if you can access your own block log. Please try going here. You will see that the block dates and times are exactly as I listed above (though the times may be presented in a different time zone). --Yamla 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was NOT warned 20 times, I was warned 5 times about images, two of them I did not post, I just checked. And two images that were not used in articles, I've only been a member for a few months, maybe 3-4 at most, how do you expect anyone to get all of the facts/rules down. You had no right after banning me for two days to then decide that you wish to ban me for a week instead later.

Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. Which he has not done.

Dam!ta 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

please be reviewed by someone help, other than Yamla. I feel he should be reported. He has no right or power to decide a day later, he should ban someone longer.Dam!ta 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that you have two archive pages containing a number of warnings. I count more than five warnings on the first archive page alone. I expect that you will be able to follow Wikipedia copyright and fair-use policies when you have been directed to these policies (note that you were not blocked until well after these were pointed out to you). I took substantial time to explain these policies to you and I used the standard policy of escalating blocks in an attempt to stop your abusive behaviour. You would do better to stop your copyright and fair-use violations rather than complaining about being blocked. --Yamla 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that another admin has reviewed the block and your editing behaviour. --Yamla 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Look at my Talk page, The first three images, were not used in any articles, Orphaned fair use image, leaving me with THREE IMAGES i uploaded which were not coded right. You don't have any facts, that justify me being banned for a week. Dam!ta 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but orphaned images are also a violation of Wikipedia copyright and fair-use policies. Note that another admin has reviewed your block and agreed that your continual fair-use and copyright violations warranted another block. --Yamla 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case than this "user" shold state his opinions here and not through you.Dam!ta 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has. Check out pgk's comments at the bottom of this page. --Yamla 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep that's me alright. --pgk^(talk) 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi there, I'm very sorry about my wrongful revert of your edits, I pressed the wrong button on my popups, apologies. Kind regards -- Banes 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fergiecover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fergiecover.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Your recent replacement of a free image with a copyrighted image on the article about Stacy Ferguson, and the problems with the fair-use rationale on that image's page, have led to yet another block. Wikipedia takes copyright and fair-use very seriously. --Yamla 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, as you did to User talk:Dam!ta, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

[edit] Adina Howard

[2]

- Yamla keeps banning me on purpose everyday! He watches every move I make, when I'm not doing anything wrong. So I miss coded a photo, and put newspaper and not magazine, but I cleary wrote in the coding a magazine cover from fergiefan.com. I don't believe this user should be in charge of banning anyone. He is a little too ban happy for my taste. I'm a new user and i'm getting better with editing, but this is too much, this is his forth time, no other user has had a problem but him. Dam!ta 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you keep uploading copyvios what do you expect? There are multiple problems with your upload.

• "The image is a promotional image originally created by Cosmo, intended for wide distribution." - False, it is a magazine cover not a promotional shot, they do not freely distribute the cover for promotional purposes.
• "No free or public domain images have been located" - False, you removed a free image on the page to replace it with this one. --pgk^(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• "The image is of lower resolution and quality than the original image (copies made from it will be of inferior quality)." - Is of reasonable quality, as a digital image it won't degrade when copied....

--pgk^(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleary, whatever. As I said I'm a new user, you don't learn every single rule overnight, these bannings are cleary over the top. I've done great work on Wikipedia. Ban me forever if you wish. Peace. Dam!ta 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned and blocked for this before, if I were in your position I would take the hint that perhaps your understanding of these issues is lacking, I'd then probably try and ask *first* when not sure. If you'd posted a talk page message for Yamla first saying "I'm thinking of uploading .... for ...., any advice?", I'm sure you'd have got some help. Regardless of you claims of newness the second item on that list is nothing to do with being new, you were fully aware you were removing an existing image for this image. --pgk^(talk) 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice: When blocking may not be used

Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. And he and you know I was acting in good faith. Get over yourself.

You don't get an assumption of good faith forever. You have had mutiple problems and been blocked multiple times, an assumption of good faith is not the equivelant of disengaging your brain. I suggest you get over your own "I'm the victim" mentality and look to how you can resolve the issues in the future. --pgk^(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dam!ta 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)