User talk:Gregchilders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommywest.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. 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Tommy West.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy West.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. 19:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very sad, sir.

I cannot fathom why you think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Your attempt to pose as an official of Wikipedia by putting "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" before your message to me is blatantly transparent. In case you did not know, by looking at the history of any page, one can see not only what the edits to the page have been, but who made them.

Apatronoftruth 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

In this edit you removed another's comments from an article Talk page. This is grossly inappropriate, and is considered Vandalism. When challenged on the accuracy of material you have submitted, the appropriate response is to produce Reliable Sources to Verify your claims. Vandalizing the comments of another is never acceptable. Fan-1967 15:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AfD Nomination: Memphis Improvisational Theatre

I've nominated the article Memphis Improvisational Theatre for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Memphis Improvisational Theatre satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memphis Improvisational Theatre. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Memphis Improvisational Theatre during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Fan-1967 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous vandalism

I could not find the appropriate Level 1 or Level 2 warnings. If I made an error by posting a Level 3 warning incorrectly, then I apologize for this mistake. However, I have had to edit the anonymous vandalism on at least a dozen occasions.Gregchilders 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, you no longer have to worry about one or two anonymous editors. Who they are, and what their motivations are, is irrelevant. The article is now in the hands of the editing community. You should be aware of Wikipedia's policy on article ownership. The short form: there is none. You don't own the article, and the subject of an article is generally the worst choice to edit that article, based on or desire for objectivity. (Our policy on Autobiography and Conflict of Interest also apply. You should read those polies as well.
I will say that, based on my web search, your comment is true that "the information is rather consistent." However, that is because just about everything I could find appeared to have been written by you, which is a serious problem. All Wikipedia articles (and this is our #1, unbreakable rule) must be Verifiable from independent, third-party, Reliable Sources. More source information from you will have no value whatsoever. Fan-1967 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I guess that settles it, then

If Wikipedia's policy is that someone cannot edit a page if it pertains to them directly, then you are well within your rights to delete it. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Please keep an eye on entries from the IP addresses 147.154.235.53 and 24.92.134.49. In addition, please check the alias "Apatronoftruth." They have been the perpetrators of multiple cases of vandalism in the past. The former IP address has also vandalized another Memphis improvisational group's Wikipedia page for the Wiseguys.

Good luck to you, Apatronoftruth. I hope that one day you are able to get over your anger. It isn't healthy.Gregchilders 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Characterizing the edits that I, Apatronoftruth, have made as vandalism is untrue and, in fact, is slanderous. Vandalism, as defined by Wikiopedia, "is generally defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki."
Please cite specific examples of my "vandalism" before accusing me. Otherwise, your accusation is simply slander.
Apatronoftruth 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, there is no rule that people cannot edit entries directly relating to them. It is just discouraged, as it tends to lead to less than objective articles. The valid reason for the article to be deleted is that it does not seem to be a Notable company, as evidenced by such things as newspaper articles or reviews, which in this case do not seem to exist. Fan-1967 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get over yourself

The page is marked for deletion, so you'll have to find some other page to vandalize.

Gregchilders 07:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is truly amazing how you refuse to answer any question or request asked of you. As I said before, before you accuse me of vandalism, please state specific examples of such, using the applicable definition - that is Wikipedia's definition.

Apatronoftruth 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit on November 6th

Though Mr. Childers repeatedly attempts to edit this page, removing the second paragraph, further showing his conceit, as patrons of truth, we will continue to shine a light on this dishonesty.

How can that not be taken as vandalism?


Again, the article is marked for deletion. Why do you feel the morbid need to persist?

Gregchilders 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, according to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, the noted edit is neither, disruptive or distructive, unless you call telling the truth disruptive or distructive.
The need to persist is because you still refuse to acknowledge that the entry you still continue to attempt to show the public is not based on truth or fact. The need to continue is because you still refuse to explain yourself while throwing up unfounded accusations of other's wrongs.
So, again, why do you refuse to answer the questions about the "performance company" that you claim to have that has never performed and, in truth, does not exist?

Apatronoftruth 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will not debate with anonymous cowards

Go find something else to do.

Gregchilders 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not anonymous. This is from a registered user of Wikipedia.
And you still refuse to answer the questions posed to you. You still respond with irrational and unresponsive statements.
Just answer the questions.

Apatronoftruth 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


"It is truly amazing how you refuse to answer any question or request asked of you. Apatronoftruth 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)"


[edit] Indeed, truly amazing. Almost clinical....

Apatronoftruth: "Greg, I've got a certified copy of your birth certificate here that says your name is actually Steve. Is it?"

Greg/Steve: "Stop vandalizing my name."

Apatronoftruth: "I'm pretty sure I'm not vandalizing your name, I just want to know what your name actually is."

Greg/Steve: "I exist. I'm standing right here."

Apatronoftruth: "I agree. Hey, if you prefer Greg to Steve that's cool. I was just hoping you'd clarify. I mean, it is a simple matter of fact."

Greg/Steve: "You're a coward."

Apatronoftruth: "Probably not. What's your name?"

Greg/Steve: "Stop harassing me."

Apatronoftruth: "What is your name?"

Greg/Steve: "Stop stalking me."

Thank you for that. A very clear and concise analogy to what has been happening. Amusing, no? I would laugh if it weren't so sad.
Apatronoftruth 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more personal attacks.

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I understand you have a disagreement with another user, but please do not stoop to name-calling, which you have done extensively. Please try to remain calm and handle matters appropriately. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Memphis Improvisational Theatre

Your edit to Memphis Improvisational Theatre is in violation of WP:3RR. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tommy West.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy West.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Calipari.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Calipari.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media 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 media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by 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 description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. fuzzy510 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)