User talk:Dean randall/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The articles on this page are from old discussions and are obselete

Also they are based on an untrue controversy. please ignore the following rubbish

Your nonsense article Stop recreating this article about a hole at your school. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. If you recreate this article again, you will be blocked from editing for vandalism. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Every edit you make, logged in or as an IP address, is recorded and is fully visible to administrators. Your actions here are recorded, watched and analysed. Please don't attempt to claim you didn't do something when your name/IP address is clearly attached to the edits in question. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Fair use images I have removed from your user page a copyright image. Copyright images are only allowed in the article namespace as they are used under "fair use" provisions in copyright law. Elsewhere they are considered to be a copyright violation. See WP:FU for further information on this policy. Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for the next 24 hours because of making personal attacks on another editor. See the block log for more details. If you want to contribute constructively, you may return when the block expires. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Request to unblock denied. Two reasons: first, you didn't give a reason, so why would we simply unblock? Second: Your two emails to me continue the personal attacks, including accusing me of vandalism. It seems clear you are completely unaware of Wikipedia policies, despite them being clearly noted on this very page.

However, just so we can be clear, please read:

WP:FU - Wikipedia's fair use policy, which explains why you cannot have copyright images on your user page and how they will' be removed. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK, and WP:V- in other words, Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Neutral Point of View in articles, sock and meat puppet usage, and verification of facts - each of which other users have complained about you not following. Until you absorb these, the article you continually repost will continually be deleted. Also, you put a box on your user page to say you were authorised to use VandalProof. You are not authorised to use VandalProof. Other users complained. Therefore that box has been removed.

I hope this is all clear to you, and that you will return tomorrow evening and contribute constructively to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with vandalising, making threats, making personal attacks and recreating deleted articles. If this isn't possible, you 'will be blocked from editing again, but this time for longer. I hope to see you editing harmoniously tomorrow evening and look forward to sorting this all out with your headmaster on Monday morning. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

No, per above -- Tawker 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC) OOO! i see ithought i had to give a reason using the strange format thing but i can just type it. please unblock me cos i didn't recreate the BLHDA page, i wsa unaware of the copywright on the logo and i just copy and pasted the vandalproof thing from someone else cos i thought it was allowed like copying the R/C patrol officer icon.

Denied, there is still the issue of personal attacks. --pgk(talk) 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC) {{unblock}} I am unaware of any personal threats i have made. Please quote a threat i have made to clarify this matter. As far as i can recall i asked you to unblock me because i was disgusted. What is wrong with that? Also what is wrong with displaying the vandal proof icon even if you dont actually have it. It still acts as a deterrent

I have not made any personal threats towards user:redvers! I have not mocked his unorthodox sexuality nor do i wish to. i respect him like i do everyone and all i have asked him to do is to stop accusing me of re-creating the BLHDA and to unblock me in the politest manner possible. thank you kindly user:dean randall

No, as per above. For your information, here is one example of a personal attack you made: this diff has accusations of "vandalism" and "infantile behaviour". That won't do. For another, you just said "I have not mocked his unorthodox sexuality nor do i wish to". Nobody else mentioned my (entirely normal) sexuality. Just you. You brought it up. That suggests this "no personal attacks" thing really isn't sinking in with you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC) {{unblock}} do you find the phrase 'infantile behaviour' offensive? I do find homosexuality unorthodox as i am brought up in a christain family and school. I must say i have not received a very warm welcome from you to wikipedia. i thought new comers were given leniency. As i have said i'm still unfamilar with how to use wikipedia properly so please asssit me in learning, not preventing me. I didn't impersonate the account 'nick taunt' as suggested on your talk page nor did i re-create BLHDA. I have not written anything offensive about Bishop luffa on their page.I have only written constructive comments. I have improved grammar of some articles and created a paragraph called 'sports facilities', which was approved by another editor. i look forward to this evening when i can edit your user page, not just mine! BTW what time does my bann get lifted?

The block expires 21:20, 9 July 2006. I believe you are sincere, if a bit misguided, so I look forward to seeing you editing constructively in accordance with the Wikipedia rules listed above from tonight. And, by the way, yes, accusing fellow editors of vandalism without evidence and of infantile behaviour is indeed unacceptable personal attacks. So don't do it again. Also, you are welcome to your opinions on sexuality. Your opinions on my sexuality are unwelcome and if you'd like to keep your views to yourself, that would be most welcome too. Oh, and by the way, you are most welcome to edit my talk page - if you have anything constructive to say - but I'd rather you didn't edit my user page as you have threatened to do above - coz if you did, it would probably be thought of as vandalism and you may be blocked from editing without warning. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing speedy deletion tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dean Randall. I nominated the "frosties kid" article for deletion in the process of my patrolling recent changes and new articles. Generally if I see an article that appears to meet one of the standards at the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, I nominate it with a speedy tag. Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make sure that new articles conform to policy. Thank you for your contributions, however, and please continue contributing to the encyclopedia in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. At this point, since your account seems to be pretty new, you'd probably be better to just make a new account with the name that you want. If you have any questions about editing or policy, feel free to drop me another line on my page. Thank you, --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Luffa School

Hey, congrats on your edits. I revised the grammar a little. Please note that you can sign messages you leave on people's talk pages by appending --~~~~ to your messages.

[edit] Changing your user name

Hi there - yes you can change your name - see this link - Wikipedia:Changing username Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of delete templates

I have to warn you that persistant removal of delete templates is considers vandalism and is likely to lead to you being barred from editing Wikipedia. Travelbird 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted BLHDA as it did not contain any assertion of notability sufficient for an encyclopaedia. If you remove a speedy deletion notice from an article which you created again, you will be blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:YHB 1235.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:YHB 1235.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Did you figure out how to post pictures yet? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice little box for you

I have added you a nice little box above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Hope this helps! Just remember that removing signed comments from talk pages is frowned up (unless they are not part of a discussion and are obvious vandalism). Cheers ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:YHB 1235.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:YHB 1235.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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:YHB 1235.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:YHB 1235.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 an argument 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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing image maintenance tags

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Dean randall,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you have made too few edits in the main article namespace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. —Xyrael / 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Younghusband_1235.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Younghusband_1235.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Wikipedia is not censored. Cheers ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IT technician

I deleted the section from the Bishop Luffa article because he's just not notable. He may well be important to the school, but has no importance beyond that. Generally Wikipedia covers subjects that have some interest outside of a narrow interest group, and I don't see how the school IT technician counts. At most we generally cover the headmaster/principle and maybe a couple of significant staff members if they have some recognition outside the school they serve, no more. Thanks, Gwernol 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

Dear Darren

Wikipedia is a wiki. A wiki is a type of website that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit and change most available content. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative writing. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We encourage people to edit articles written by others, and discourage people from having a sense of ownership of any article.

If you have articles that you consider you own, you should divest yourself of that opinion immediately.

As for "stalking" you - no, I am not. Why on earth would I? I am, however, an admin here at Wikipedia and a member of the Wikipedia:Cleaning department. One of the jobs I do (and, indeed all editors can do, should they wish to) is to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia - that edits are good ones, that articles match with our long-established rules, guidelines and manual of style and that we don't have a clutter of articles that are ill-written or unsuitable for our encyclopedia.

I see that you created an article about your school's IT consultant. That article was nominated for deletion by another editor. As an admin, I was the one who deleted it. As required by Wikipedia rules on speedy deletions, I checked the "What links here" feature and removed strange references in other articles that linked to that article. I also follow links on the deleted article and its linked articles, ensuring that vandalism wasn't the motive behind the edits. These links often lead to articles that are in need of severe clean-up.

I'm sorry if any/all of these articles were "your" articles, but, as you say, your work often does need "close attention" afterwards, so perhaps monitoring your contributions would not be a bad thing. In the meantime, you are welcome to visit Special:Contributions/Redvers at any time in order to check that your concerns are incorrect.

Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Bishop Luffa School. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

[edit] Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on User talk:Kinglloyd: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

Dear Darren

You have removed the warning from Image:Dave footballer.jpg that says it does not have information on its copyright status and replaced it with a tag that says the image is copyrighted but the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose.

I visited the website that is the source of this image. Their terms and conditions state:

All material on the site including, without limitation, any text, graphics, logos, photographs, audio or video materials or stills from audiovisual material available on the site (the "Content") belongs to ESA or its licensors. You may retrieve and display Content from the site on a computer screen, print individual pages on paper (but not photocopy them) and store such pages in electronic form on disk (but not on any server or other storage device connected to a network) for your personal, non-commercial use.

Except as expressly set out above, you may not reproduce, modify or in any way commercially exploit any of the Content. In particular, but without limiting the general application of the restrictions contained in the preceding sentence, you may not do any of the following without prior written permission from ESA:

- Redistribute any of the Content (including by using it as part of any library, archive or similar service);

- Remove the copyright or trade mark notice from any copies of Content made under these Terms;

- Create a database in electronic or structured manual form by systematically downloading and storing all or any of the Content.

- Creating works or materials that derive from or are based on the materials contained in the site including, without limitation, fonts, icons, link buttons, wallpaper, desktop themes, online postcards and greetings cards and unlicenced merchandise. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the derivative materials are sold, bartered or given away.

From that, I can see no clause that says this image is copyright but freely available. If you have written to this website and asked them for permission to use this image (which includes commercial exploitation of the image and the right to produce derivative works), please supply a copy of the letter or email where they gave this permission so it can be checked. The talk page of the image is the perfect place to do this.

If you have accidentally placed the wrong tag on this image, you would be advised to revert your edit and consider other options available (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) for licence tags for this image.

Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Any copy of the image would be a derivative work, no matter how you made it (although, in theory, you could do a drawing of the image and thus get around this, although I don't believe this has been tested in court). Therefore your options are to get written permission to release the image under the GDFL, or to take your own photograph and release that as public domain, CC, or GDFL. There is no middle ground. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dave thomas

just to tell you that i'll be fair with you if you'll be fair with me!

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thank you. ➨ JIMOTHY T

[edit] Signature

I'm flattered that the two of you boys, being so obviously close to each other, have decided to copy my signature. But perhaps you'd like to modify the colours a bit, or something else, so nobody accidently accuses you of attempting to impersonate me. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certainly

Thanks for pointing that out, I was impressed at the way in which you did that! I shouldn't imagine anybody would think I was impersanating you but you cant be too sure these days! ➨ JIMOTHY T

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for the next 24 hours because of making repeated personal attacks after being warned, culminating in the edit summary removing excrement to describe warnings and helpful posts on your talk page. See the block log for more details. If you want to contribute constructively, you may return when the block expires. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Please do not take the comment 'excrement' personally. Your comments do not resemble excrement in the slightest manner! I was not trying to put down the hard efforts of people contributing on my talk page. I used the term 'excrement' to describe the large quantity of comments on my page. I was not trying to offend those who had posted comments. i was just trying to add a humourous element to my talk page. it was purely a joke comment and should not be seen as anything more. BTW I have not been denied several times, because this is the only unblock tag i know."

Decline reason: "Unblock denied, the original block expires in less than an hour, and you ought to be able to see how someone might be offended by describing their comments as excrement"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

.

By the way, to request to be unblocked, use the {{unblock|"reason"}} template instead of the {{unblock reviewed}} one. Thanks, Gwernol 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I fail to see how any one in a right state of mind can be offended unless they have had a bad experience with excrement in the past. I shall resume my constructive editing in a hours time and hope that we can forget this faecal matter. Ha ha ha ➨ Darren

[edit] Copyright problems from [1]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Alan and Barry (Crafters) article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Darren
1 - The article was almost word-for-word a copy. The changes between the two were tiny - and mainly related to changing "this website" to "their website" type of things. The article was an evident copy-and-paste, then touch-up, not a rewrite.
2 - There is no requirement in British or American law to declare a copyright on original work. Copyright is something original work has intrinsically under the Berne Convention, unless disclaimed. Copyright notices on material are there primarility as a reminder, and also because legislation in some countries suggest that requirement - ie, it can't harm. However, just because someone else's original work does not have a copyright notice on it does not mean you can release that work under the GDFL.
The relevant policy can be found be reading this page. I hope this helps. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Dean

Dear Dean, I'm incredibly ashamed about the belated reply; but if it's within my possibilities, I try to never ever, leave a kind and beautiful message like the one you left me unanswered. I just wished to thank you deeply for the nice words you gifted me regarding my userpage - and to tell you it's great you didn't see it 6 months ago, there were like 30 userboxes there! But I kinda felt like, isn't it better just to "say" who, and how we are? Anyway, dear, don't allow me to bother you with my ramblings... if you want, I can arrange your page a bit too - just let me know if you do. Again, thank you! Warm regards, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article

Hi Darren. Possibly, but you'll need to give me more information to look it up for you (like the article's title). However, if it is no longer to be seen at Special:Contributions/Dean randall then, yes, someone will have deleted it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Darren. The article in question was deleted under Wikipedia Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD). The reason given was CSD-A7 - Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
The proposed notability guideline about actors in pornography is at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), providing advice on what the community feels is enough to make a porno actor notable. However, any article would still need to assert notability within the article itself. Hope this helps ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

Hi Darren. No, there's no regular Wikimania in the UK, although I believe meet-ups have been held in the past. The official Wikimania is in a different country each year - the UK's bid for hosting the event next year is being discussed on meta but no decisions have been made yet. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please dont add copyrighted lyrics to articles

Thanks, 209.51.251.74 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...as you did to Nothing at All. Also, please see Wikipedia:Notability (songs) before creating artciles about individual songs. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The MediaWiki software doesn't support *.tif files - I would suppose because they are huge, uncompressed and very poorly supported as an internet format.

The supported formats are listed on Meta - effectively, they are the websafe *.jpg, *.gif and *.png formats.

Changing the *.ext of a file doesn't change the format that file is in - the software is smart enough to know this as well. You need to re-save your file in the correct format - download The GIMP, open the image and save into a useful format from that if your current software doesn't allow you to choose something better.

Hope this helps. Please read WP:FU before uploading something you have scanned and ensure you provide a clearly noted source and select the correct copyright tag for the image. Remember that scanning an image doesn't make you the author of the image and you cannot disclaim a copyright on behalf of someone else. Copyright theft is a crime and Wikipedia disclaims responsibility on to individual editors. If you are claiming "Fair Use", you need a truthful Fair Use rationale. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Nightingale

[edit] Luke Nightingale

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Luke Nightingale, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pascal.Tesson 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Nightingale

I'm sorry but I still think that Luke Nightingale fails the WP:BIO criteria. I'm not going to go rabid and obsessively pursue deletion, especially now that you've just worked on it but as a friendly advice I would still advise you to not spend too much time on an article which likely will eventually come up for deletion and stands little chance of surviving an AfD. Also (and this is actually a serious concern) your screenshot does not qualify as "fair use" since the article is not about the game. I will unfortunately have to remove it as it is unquestionably a copyright violation.

[edit] Image:LUFFASTUDENT.JPG

Hi Darren. I don't want to be picky or anything, but you are claiming copyright on this image on the basis that you took the photograph yourself. Clearly, it is one of those beginning-of-term, drag-the-pupils-into-the-hall, photograph-them-and-flog-the-results-to-the-parents jobs.

That makes it highly unlikely you took the picture. If you are the subject of the picture, then you can claim copyright on it (although your parents, having paid for it, would likely be the ones owning the copyright). However, if you are not the subject, and since you clearly didn't take the picture yourself, then you have made an incorrect licencing declaration and need to change it immediately.

Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. For more information see our copyrights information page. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Darren, if you don't understand copyright, please don't upload pictures. The picture now is illegal to use on Wikipedia as there is no "fair use" justification for using a such a picture. As you clearly don't want to admit who is in the picture and you are thus unable to disclaim copyright on it, it must now be deleted.
Additionally, who are you trying to fool? The phrase "took picture myself" is claiming authorship. It obviously doesn't mean "I took picture myself from somewhere else". What a lot of cow dung!
Since you have lied on this upload, then lied to the admin who questioned you about this upload, let me put you on a formal warning here: The next time you upload an image with an incorrect licence you will be blocked from editing. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Which now leads me to question Image:Lukeskills.JPG. You have said this was taken at a match and that it is your own work that you are releasing copyright on. The problem here is that this image is of professional quality, taken with an expensive lens and posed by the player in question. It also, on closer inspection, appears to have been scanned in from a printed source. You are only the author of a photograph if you took the photograph yourself (ie, actually clicked the shutter on a camera that was pointing at the subject at the time and the image uploaded was the image you captured at that point). Would you like to come clean? ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That's okay then. I'm happy to WP:AGF on this. But please take my above notes on copyright and uploading to heart - Wikipedia really does take copyright seriously and it seems that you don't. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

You have been both warned before and blocked before for making personal attacks. Please withdraw the accusation that I have acted "in retaliation" for anything. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

Wikipedia: He made his way straight into the reserve team but it was still a major surprise when he was called up for his first team debut on the last day of that season. On 13th May 1967 he was chosen to play against Everton F.C. at Turf Moor and at the age of 16 years and 220 days he became the second youngest player ever to play for the club and the youngest ever to play in the 1st Division.

Clarets MAD: He went straight into the reserve team but it was still a major surprise when he was called up for his first team debut on the last day of that season. On 13th May 1967 he lined up against Everton at Turf Moor and at the age of 16 years and 220 days became the second youngest player ever to play for the club and the youngest ever to play in the 1st Division.


Wikipedia: He didn’t win a first team place the following year but he was still a vital part of the team that won the FA Youth Cup for the Burnley, playing inside-left with Steve Kindon on the left wing.

Clarets MAD: It didn’t win him a first team place the following year but he was a vital part of the team that won the FA Youth Cup for the Clarets, playing inside-left with Steve Kindon on the left wing.


Wikipedia: However in 1968 and with the departure of willie Morgan he stepped up into the first team and played on a regular basis, enjoying a run of eight successive victories in the Autumn of 1968, which included a 5-1 win over Leeds united.

Clarets MAD: With the departure of Willie Morgan in 1968 he stepped up into the first team on a regular basis and was soon joined by Kindon as we went on a run of eight successive victories in the autumn of 1968.


Wikipedia: There was constant speculation that he and manager, Jimmy Adamson, didn’t see eye to eye and he was forever being linked with moves to bigger clubs, particularly after relegation.

Clarets MAD: There was constant speculation that he and manager Jimmy Adamson didn’t see eye to eye and he was forever being linked with moves to bigger clubs, particularly after we had been relegated.


Obvious copyvio. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


  • These are not "my standards", these are Wikipedia standards. There is not a "small similarity", there are whole sentences and paragraphs that are the same. Even when they differ, it's general to turn "us" to "their" and the like. You cannot copy word-for-word another copyright document, then tweak words here and there to make it free from copyright. You have to re-write in your own words. I repeat what I said before: stop uploading copyright material to Wikipedia. It's not that hard to grasp as a concept, is it? ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow the instructions given on the copyvio article's page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:LUFFA.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LUFFA.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. 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The summary you gave for this image is unacceptible. The photographer holds the copyright for school photographs, not the subject of them, nor the parents who paid £5 for a 5x7. The JPStalk to me 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redvers?

Redvers is not blocked. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Syrthiss 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

oic. Yes, even admins can be blocked. Syrthiss 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your pretend NGO

If either you or your little friend recreate it, you'll be permanently blocked. Got that? Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lukeskills.JPG

Hello. You told Redvers that you used your dad's camera and lens to photograph Image:Lukeskills.JPG. I'd be interested to know which camera and lens were used. Can you remember what the focal length was? The JPStalk to me 19:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for the next 48 hours because of yet more personal attacks. See the block log for more details. If you want to contribute constructively, you may return when the block expires. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is yet another pointless block with off course other motives than that stated. As of recently i have been making some very constructive edits and it is a shame you have had to take such unnecessary action. I am pleased i managed to replace the photo of littlehampton before my block was given. Look forward to seeing you in 48 hours but in the mean time you can find me editing on the simple english language. Bye for now Dean randall 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " I can't understand the reason for blocking me. The administrator gave me a final warning for my response to the deletion of the picture of littlehampton. I accept this but he then went and blocked me for, what seems to be a mystery. Since me receiving the warning i made no further responses to him, let alone personal attacks. Unless he decided to take back the final warning and block me or whether this is a grudge against me or someone has gained access to my account is yet to be known"

Decline reason: "I agree that you didn't make a direct personal attack on Redvers, but you were definitely uncivil towards him when his actions clearly did not fit the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. In light of your past blocks, I'm not going to be lifting your block, but I will be shortening your block to 12 hours so you can come back after you cool down and have reflected over your attitude which has gotten you in trouble before. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

In my opinion, implying that someone has vandalized when they clearly have not is bordering on a personal attack, and I endorse this block. Please make a concerted effort to be more civil with others during a dispute to prevent this from happening again in the future. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok that is your opinion but that is not the point. The point is i was blocked, straight after he issued me with a final warning. I am happy to accept the warning but why was i blocked? i made no further comments to him after being given the final warning Dean randall 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the realities. This user is trolling, using a perversion of the facts to fit what he thinks others will listen to. For instance, the final warning was about further disruption; the block was for current personal attacks. The edits history is clear on this. Previous examples of such misrepresentation: [2] [3]
His similar claims in the past have been dismissed - [4]
This block comes after a continued campaign of false copyright declarations [5] [6], poorly judged or vandalism edits to user pages [7] [8] and disruption to Wikipedia.
The vast majority of this user's edits have been reverted. The vast majority of articles he has created have been CSD deletes. Those that have not, have gone to AfD... and been deleted. He mixes all of this with honest-sounding questions that experienced editors are honour-bound to reply to, then edits their user pages or bitches about their answers to other editors - WP:ABF in action. He and his friends have created a fake charity about a hole they are digging at their school and repeatedly created an article about it [9] and dotted references to it around Wikipedia [10]
All in all, I'm happy to declare that this editor is trolling. I'm reluctant to tie him to the pillory at WP:RFC but, with the above evidence, no longer have any choice but to do so. For shame. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maybe so...

The thing that you guys are still reluctant to see is the fact that the comments made to redvers where humouros and were written in good nature, now although redvers himself may not find these comments humourous, he kind of (i'm sorry to say this but this is what i feel) needs to lighten up and understand that we are only 15 year old boys, how do you expect us to behave? Although these comments were indeed vadalism the severity of the edits was somewhat low, and the edits where not made to misinform or cause any pain to the recievers of the comments. As for the charity being made up, it was not a made up organisation, we did submit the organisation to become a registered charity but where turned down as we were to young, the organisation fits well within the boundries of becoming a charity and the fact that it is not is only a minor technicality!

Ever since em and my companion joined wikipedia we have been subject to numerous outbuurstys on redvers' side and have not felt int he elast bit welcome, each time this happens we learn something new and we hope that redvers does too! We are trying to create more edits and are obviously being monitored by redvers 24/7 as everything we write is reverted without reason or chance for us to re-write the edit. If redvers was to actualy tell us exactly what it was that wa wrong with it on the discussion page and tell us on our talk poage then we would learn more and would become better wikipedians.

I understand that in the past we have been rather out of order towards redvers but, i also feel that redvers should understand that if he wasn't so harsh on us we wouldnt be forced into doing this, If we didnt feel strongly about wikipedia i would not be writing this very long and extended article about whatever it is that i've been writing this elongated article about!

I hope that Redvers, along with other wikipedians, will try to help us along and help us work to our full ability in the future and would hate to stop using wikipedia because of fear of being misjudged or unfairly treated as a result of the good natured edits which i try so many times to write, some fo the stuff may be copyright but as i have already emntioned we are 15 years old, do you excpect us to be copyright masterminds? i sure hope you dont cos if you do you need a reality check, we take onboard all comments about copyright and try to learn more about the reasons tht our text or pictures were wrongly licensed etc. If wikipedia was more leniant towards the younger writting then it would become a better place.

Well thats all I have to say about that, I hope you understand what I am trying to say and i also hope you dont have problems with what i have written! All me and darren want is to write articles about things we know and love and not be told that we are "fibbing" or "in violation of copyright law 137b section 243f" we want to know exactly what is you have problems with and want to be aloud to edit these comments as you tell us to avoid any issues without feeling that certain people are bretahing down our backs

Thankyou for your time. ➨ Jimothy

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Lukeskills.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lukeskills.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

HawkerTyphoon 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


I can see that it has - however I'm still not convinced, as your dad would have considerable trouble getting a telephoto-lensed camera pitchside during a match without being spotted. The onus is on you to prove that it's not copyrighted. I would be willing to assume good faith, but since your previous edits show that you have a flagrant disregard for copyright, I'm convinced that this picture is not free. HawkerTyphoon 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't take your word for it. Is there some way you can prove that you took the photo? A photo of the photo, for example? Or even better, a photo of the negative, close up? Although some users will give you the benefit of the doubt, I am considerably more difficult to convince. We need proof that the picture is in fact yours - Does your father have an internet gallery of the photos? The Nikon D50 is a digital camera, I believe, so could you find the original file, one that hasn't been printed out? HawkerTyphoon 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless you can prove that the photograph is yours, it will be deleted in about 10 days, as per the discussion linked to at it's page. Thankyou. HawkerTyphoon 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, a horrible outrage. It really is. But copyright is copyright, and as it's highly doubtful that the photograph was taken by you, it will be deleted in ten days. If in the meantime you can prove it is yours, contact me, an adminstrator, or the page in question. HawkerTyphoon 21:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see where Redverse is coming from, but to be quite honest I won't care unless you start making iffy contributions on articles I watch, that's all. Keep your head down, make some anti-vandalism edits by watching Special:Recent Changes, and avoid any article you have an opinion on, especially Bognor Regis or the like. How about making a WP:Requested Articles? Do some research, slap down a stub. it'll be fine. HawkerTyphoon 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to your message that the file is still on the SD card... this digital file would be much better than the print anyway. Why can't you connect it to the computer using the supplied USB cable and transfer the file? This would cost you zilch. The JPStalk to me 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to my user subpage

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Petros471 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted because that image had nothing to do with the contents of that (Wikibar-A) page. That's an editing tool, not an image gallery... Petros471 10:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links...

...are covered in complicated detail on Meta. In short, however, it depends on what you want to do with them.

If you want a visible link, you can use [[:lang:Article]] - for instance [[:de:InterWiki]] which makes de:InterWiki - a direct link to an article on the German-language Wikipedia. This can be piped like any other link. Note the colour. However, it is rare that you'd want an interlanguage link from within an article, this being the English-language Wikipedia an' all.

If you've got an article that also exists on another language, you can create a link by doing the above but leaving out the first colon. These links go at the foot of the article and create a link in the left-hand navigation. Have a look at the bottom of ITV for an example - there are links to de, fr, id, ga, it, nl, ja, sv and zh under various names - from イギリス to ITV to 英國獨立電視台 to Independent Television. You can see them all in the left nav of the article.

As for logging into fr: you'll need to create an account there, just like you did here. MediaWiki isn't set up for cross-wiki logins yet, although it will be in the next few months, we're told. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Dean randall,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego talk 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stingray

The unsourced statement I was referring to was the comment regarding urine, and the trivia is not relevant to the article. There are thousands of things called 'stingray' and listing them in the article would be impossible. Diagonalfish 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not just talking about people. A simple Google search shows that not only are there several people called this, but also a movie, a bike, a type of boat, a firewall, a snorkling company, a lighting company... even a nebula. All of these things cannot be listed, thus the most sane alternative is to list none of them. It is an article about the animal, not about all of the things that are named after it. Diagonalfish 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Irwin on Simple English

Dean, I responded to your request for help on the Simple English Wikipedia. I added in some (edited) info from the the en. version. It's the first time I've worked on simple. so any comments before I try and finish the job would be appreciated. -- SiobhanHansa 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i came online, u happy now

[edit] Littlehampton

The picture illustrated nothing of use in an encyclopedia. The entrance to the local public lav? Pur-leese.

However, as you already know, false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. See below. This is your final warning about making false accusations of vandalism and the like against your fellow editors. The next time you do this, you will be blocked form editing permanently. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What is your game?

I myself do not twist reality but i am utterly confused as to why i was blocked when i was issued with a final warning. I made no further responses to you after the final warning, let alone personal attacks so why was i blocked? You are the one who appears to be making gross misrepresentations of reality. The only edit i made after the final warning was the insertion of a picture of the west beach and the insertion of Image:Recycling-bin.JPG to the recycling bin article. In no way can this be seen as personal attack after the warning was given. Also i am unfamilar with the term trolling. What does this mean? The re-creation of the BLHDA article, which was not by me, occured several months ago and i am surprised that you are still bringing this matter up. Me and Jimothytrotter still feel that it is notable as it is an up and running charity and in no way pretend. As Jimothy said we applied for offical charity regognision but we're turned down because a supervising adult could not be present at all times. Myself and jamie's edits have been very constructive on the whole and all edits have been made in good will. We are very greatfull for the helfulness from most editors but there is a small majority who are hell bent on nullifying the contributions we make. We find this age discrimination very upsetting and hope that these people will ease up and treat us fairly. Please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes so we can resolve the situation and we hope that for the benifit of Wikipedia we can all move on. [11]Dean randall 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave Redvers alone for now. There are plenty of other things on Wikipedia you might be able to do rather than bugging him. The JPStalk to me 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I endorse this suggestion. --Guinnog 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I will take a look and see if I can help you later. Sorry you are upset, but you mustn't bother Redvers any more, please. I am off to the pub to have a beer; maybe you could do the same if your circumstances allow? There is more to life than Wikipedia after all... --Guinnog 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per your NARTH userbox...

Based on that evidence of bias...any harassment by you of Redvers or ANY other editor of this encyclopedia will have immediate consequences. Syrthiss 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I made that for him for a laugh, I imagined he would delete it.
sorry JIMOTHY