User talk:HeadMouse/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Monorail System 2 Piped links 3 Mark VI monorail 4 Image copyvios 4.1 Copyright problems with Image:MarkVI.jpg 4.2 Copyright problems with Image:MarkVI tire.jpg 4.3 Copyright problems with Image:Monorail prints.jpg 4.4 Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram.jpg 4.5 Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram3.jpg 4.6 Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram2.jpg 4.7 Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram4.jpg 4.8 Copyright problems with Image:Load tire.jpg 4.9 Copyright problems with Image:Guide tire.jpg 5 Trying to Help 6 Warnings 7 Warnings 8 Mark VI monorail 9 Copyright warning 10 /Archive 1 11 Warnings 12 Blocked 13 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail prints.jpg) 14 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram4.jpg) 15 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram3.jpg) 16 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram2.jpg) 17 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram.jpg) 18 Orphaned non-free image (Image:MarkVI.jpg) 19 Orphaned non-free image (Image:MarkVI tire.jpg) 20 Sorry 21 Image Question 22 Mark VI monorail 23 Welcome Back 24 Non-free use disputed for Image:Monorail sign.jpg 24.1 June 2007 25 Image:Toy mono_yelllow.jpg listed for deletion 26 Image:Monorailcontrols4.jpg listed for deletion 27 June 2007 28 Help??? 29 Walt Disney World Monorail System 30 Warnings 31 Civility 32 User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System 33 June 2007 34 Learn 35 Please 36 Request for a breather 37 Lets put it this way 38 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail license.jpg) 39 Analogy 40 Warnings 41 Speedy tags 42 Edit war 43 No personal attacks 44 June 2007 45 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail license.jpg) 46 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail sign.jpg) 47 Fair use rationale for Image:Monorail article.jpg 48 Why so stubborn? 49 Image copyright problem with Image:Monorailcard.jpg 50 Fair use rationale for Image:Monorailcard.jpg 51 Image problems 52 Talk pages and edit summaries 53 June 2007 54 Rationales 55 Blocked 56 Page protected 57 Moving forward 58 Fair use rationale for Image:Monorail fire article.jpg 59 Reprotected 60 WP:3RR violation 61 July 2007 62 Words of Encouragement 63 Image:Monorail fire newspaper article.jpg listed for deletion 64 Wondering 65 ==blah== 66 Done 67 Delta image 68 MfD nomination of User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System 68.1 Metros 69 Yamla 70 WHAT THE HECK???? 71 Autoblocked 71.1 Clearing an autoblock

[edit] Monorail System

Hi - I want you to understand why the Monorail System page should redirect to Monorail, not the WD monorail system. When you look at the Redirection page and the Principle of least astonisment guideline, redirects should go where a user searching for that topic is most likely to want to end up. Someone searching for monorail system is more likely to want the generic - but if they do want the WD system, it's linked from the monorail page.

If you want to explain your reasons for thinking that it should go elsewhere, please respond here - on your user page - that's where I'll check for a response. Ellbeecee 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

well 1) There was no redirect page until I created it and since I was creating it for the page of the WDW Monorail system, the words being clicked on need to be directed to the WDW monorails system page. Please leave it alone. if you want a redirect to the word MONORAIL then create one. HeadMouse 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Oh, and sorry - I just saw this - on your Mark VI monorail page, why not direct the link straight to Walt Disney World Monorail System instead of Monorail System? Ellbeecee 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Mark VI page is a link FROM the WDW Monorail page. HeadMouse 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

But the links can go in both directions - just because it's linked from the WD monorail page, doesn't mean that it can't link back there. Ellbeecee 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On top of that Where it says "Colors of...." Walt Disney World links to one page, and the Monorail System directs to another. HeadMouse 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Why is it such a big deal? HeadMouse 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Because Wikipedia is about producing an online encyclopedia - and to be encyclopedic, links need to make sense, and go to the most appropriate page, not one where the person who created the page necessarily thinks is best - remember, that you don't own the page you created here, and anyone can edit it at any time. Are you going to be able to watch it 24/7? Ellbeecee 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are distracting me from my work. Do what you need. I'll do what I need. For the link to direct to "MONORAIL" makes no sence.HeadMouse 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

If it pleases the court. The link is fixed. no need for a "redirect" HeadMouse 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

I don't appreciate being referred to as a "monkey" in your edit summary. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from doing so with others in the future. Ellbeecee 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate you coming on here telling me where a redirect that I created should lead to. HeadMouse 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Monorail System. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piped links

Are you familiar with piped links? They can be used to save you the hassle of having to make redirects, and do not clutter up Wikipedia's namespace with unnecessary redirect pointers. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark VI monorail

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mark VI monorail, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPDisro.html http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPDissu.html http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPDispr.html http://monorailyellow.com/monorails.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Mark VI monorail and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Mark VI monorail with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Mark VI monorail.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Mark VI monorail/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Mark VI monorail saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The TEXT in question is from MY OWN personal site. http://monorail-man1979.tripod.com/monorail_info.html

The information is similar to the sites you listed above as the information is most likely gathered form the same source for both sites.

I will not work on a "new version" of this article as the information I would post would be the same. There is no need for this article to be removed. ALl the information posted was public information and "free to use". Why the hell do you keep comming behind all my stuff and tryign to find somthing wrong. Like "It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone" what the hell does that mean? It's text, it's read. It's technical information. No other way to put it then to just post it. What good is an encyclopedia that people can't get information out of? And how can people read the information if you keep deleting it. HeadMouse 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

• • ALL COPY RIGHT INFO HAS BEEN FIXED. Sorry it's hard to understand what a site is asking when your uploading and editing at 7am after being up for 24 hrs. HeadMouse 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

The copyright problem has not been fixed. I have deleted the exact copy of the article that you created, and replied to your message on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 9/Articles. If you have any questions, please reply below my message on that page. In the meantime, please remember to only contribute to Wikipedia using your own words. We do not tolerate the violation of others people's copyrights. ×Meegs 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyvios

Quite a few of the photos you recently uploaded appear to have copyvio issues. If you can help clear these up, we would greatly appreciate it.--Kralizec! (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of these might get away with fair use, like the diagrams, but the ones that anyone can take need to go. See this.

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:MarkVI.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:MarkVI tire.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Monorail prints.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram3.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram2.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Monorail Diagram4.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Load tire.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Guide tire.jpg

Not sure what you want from me? I explained in each image that they were scans from a pamphlet I had a few years ago. I no longer have the pamphlet to post any information of the photos. But since the photos were in a public information pamphlet they are "free to use". HeadMouse 08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

• • ALL COPY RIGHT INFO HAS BEEN FIXED. Sorry it's hard to understand what a site is asking when your uploading and editing at 7am after being up for 24 hrs. HeadMouse 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Unfortunately, images of these trains do not meet criterion #1 of Wikipedia's policy for non-free content. Because it is possible for someone to take their own photographs of the trains and release them under a free license, such as the GFDL, we can not use these photos that you found on the web. Wikipedia is a free content project, an only used restrictively copyrighted content under very specific circumstances, and only when there is no other choice.

Please review each of the following pages before uploading any additional images.

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
• Wikipedia:Fair use

If you have any questions whatsoever about images, please do not hesitate to ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. ×Meegs 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Images are "Free Media" They are free to use for informational purposes (which is what I thought wikipedia was about).

What makes you say they are "free media"? There is a critical difference between distributing a work free of cost and relinquishing its copyright. ×Meegs 09:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Free Media" is a term used to describe things such as brochures, pamphlets and other such "media" (if your going to "control" a site like wikipedia I think you should know these things) the information inside is allowed to be used for posting information about said topic. (this article for example). Normally the poster would give credit ie: This image is from a brochure for the Walt Disney World Monorail dated 1997) but as I had explained. I do not have the pamphlet anymore. I scanned the images a few years ago to use on my desktop. The pamphlet was destroyed by rain. HeadMouse 09:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Please thoroughly read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Unless the copyright of an image has expired or been explicitly released its owner, we can only use it under the conditions laid-out in Wikipedia:Non-free content. We are very strict on this. ×Meegs 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you (and all of wikipedia) I have been dealing with copyright cases for a long time. (Thats how I know about the "free media" loop hole. I spent many days before a judge getting things worked out in the past. The information posted in the article is NOT a violation of any copyright in the United States. Please replace the article. HeadMouse 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Source: Copyright Basics FAQ

Please read

Does copyright protect an author's creative ideas?

Mainly the part that reads: "...For similar reasons, copyright does not protect facts -- whether scientific, historical, biographical or news of the day."

This article is nothing but FACTS. Therefore it does not violate any copyright laws. HeadMouse 10:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Trying to Help

You're right that one cannot copyright facts, but you can copyright the way you present facts. To use the information in question you must reword it and present it in a new way, besides referencing it. Also, if you own that one website, then you should post a free-use license on that website.

I know it must be frustrating to do all that work and have it removed like that, but that's the way out. I will help you reconstruct the article if you wish.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I am tired of fighting this crap. People try to share knowledge and information for others and all they get is crap from big heads. I really feel sorry for people that come on here and read this information and take it as fact. Like you all keep reposting that there is a monorail WHITE at Walt Disney World. There is NOT a monorail White.

[edit] Warnings

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Mark VI monorail. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Edit summaries like the one you used with this article potentially violate our policy on civility. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
2. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monorail System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Mark VI monorail. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

   I do not assume ownership of anything. I am editing the information so that it is correct and so that it is more presentable to the reader which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

   Are you being serious, or are you making a straw man argument? If you are being serious, then your above statement is disingenuous at best. Your "corrected" version adds in spelling mistakes I fixed, has a total disregard for Wikipedia's Manual of Style, removes the article from all categories, and includes a bloated HTML table that makes the article look like nothing else in the Trains WikiProject or anywhere else on Wikipedia. As I indicated earlier, Wikipedia's official policy on article ownership states "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Kralizec! (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So what if it don't look exactly like the other articles, That's the point. To make information stand out to the reader.

I am sorry but there were NO spelling mistakes in the information I posted.

If Wikipedia doesn't want tables then why do they offer them?

I don't see how anything I posted removes the article from the other categories. It's a direct link from the Walt Disney World monorail system page and links back to it.

Again I do not claim to own the article. I am only improving it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mark VI monorail, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Same thing for your talk page; while you may archive your talk page at will, simply deleting everything is viewed as bad form. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark VI monorail

Thanks for bringing the Mark VI monorail article in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Your use of a wikitable looks great! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright warning

I have re-removed the article text from Mark VI monorail. The prose (not underlying facts) is the creative work of other people, and they have not agreed release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, as is required for all text in Wikipedia. I have explained this to you again and again, here and on WP:CP. If you restore this, or any other copyright violation again, you will be blocked from edition Wikipedia altogether. ×Meegs 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have explained over and over that it is NOT a copyright violation. But you do not want to except that. Not sure if you just refuse to research what "free media" means, or you just like deleting stuff. Either way it don't mater. I'll fix the article. HeadMouse 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] /Archive 1

A tag has been placed on /Archive 1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 02:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an archive page. That's what it's meant for. HeadMouse 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Scientizzle 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not experimenting. I am posting information about the article topic. HeadMouse 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Warnings

1. Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mark VI monorail, you will be blocked from editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IT'S NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. IT'S MY OWN SITE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS PEOPLE. IT'S A LINK MY OWN SITE. I GIVE MYSELF PERMISSION TO POST IT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The link is not the issue. The issue is your repeated deletion of {{copyvio}} tags, which need to stay on Mark VI monorail until the Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 9/Articles process is complete. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the fact that you guys don't accept that your wrong on this and that the information is "free use". Your on a power trip trying to hassle a new comer. HeadMouse 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Have you read the instructions on the {{copyvio}} tag? They say: "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage ... Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be clearly identified and the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. An administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved." If you would like to prepare a new, copyvio-free version of the article, you should do it at the temporary subpage like the instructions say. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the information posted about the FACTS posted not being copyrighted and are free use, and that the article written nor the images posted violated any copyright laws in the US. HeadMouse 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

1. This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Mark VI monorail, you will be blocked from editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark VI monorail. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. The copyright posting was still there. therefor no Wikipedia violation. Stop looking for excuses to try and block me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have lost count of how many times you have recreated the article Mark VI monorail, which you have admitted consists mostly of content that you did not write, but copied verbatim from other web sites. The most recent location was /Archive 2. We have discussed the matter to great length on this page (which you have strangely archived), and at WP:CP.

I have blocked you for 48 hours. You are welcome to return when the block has expired, but no further copyright violation will be tolerated whatsoever. You must only contribute your own words to this project. ×Meegs 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the information was from other sites. I said MANY times that the information was from MY site. HeadMouse 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

One other thing to keep in mind when you return to editing is that our policy on external links also forbids us from linking to other websites that violate the copyright of others. I've also removed the link to your site on your user page for this reason. ×Meegs 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My site in NO WAY, SHAPE, OF FORM violates any copyright law in the US. But as I have said before, you refuse to accept "free media". I could care less. I am tired of fighting with some power hungry teen age punk sitting behind their computer screen trying to rule the internet world. HeadMouse 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Well, that's it. Now that you've broken WP:CIVIL, your time here is likely over. Too bad, I've been looking for friends and you seem knowledgable enough, but we cannot waste time with your policy violations.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I really could care less. I now see why everyone hates Wikipedia. They refuse to open their eyes to things unknown. They refuse to accept when a member explains something like "free media" to them. They just look the other way and delete articles. What a way to run a site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail prints.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail prints.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail Diagram4.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail Diagram3.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail Diagram2.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail Diagram.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail Diagram.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:MarkVI.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MarkVI.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:MarkVI tire.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MarkVI tire.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was told the images you have just listed were copyright violation so I will not be putting them back in the article. HeadMouse 04:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Sorry

Look guys and gals. I apologize for the recent reactions I have displayed. I have been having a REALLY bad week which is not you all's fault. and I should not have taken it out on you. I accept my 48 hrs block and would understand even a 7 day block for my most recent statement. I ask that you please understand and forgive me and give me a 2nd chance.

Thank You. HeadMouse 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

As long as you are willing to follow Wikipedia's rules, I do not think anyone here would bear you any ill will. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that as long as when/if I make a mistake, it is simply explained and I am given time to fix it instead of receiving a bunch or warning. Wikipedia has so many rules and regulations they could fill an entire on shelf collection of encyclopedias LOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the best advice we can ever give a new editor: be BOLD! in making edits to Wikipedia, but if someone changes what you wrote or reverts it completely, resist the temptation to revert their version. Instead, take it to the talk page to work out the issue via discussion. This is often referred to as the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and will serve you very well during your entire Wikipedia career. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Question

I have "co-pilot" license that the monorail pilots hand out at Walt Disney World. The car has the ©Disney on the front. Which Licensing do I need to select? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question ... but unfortunately I do not have a good answer for you. I would recommend asking your question at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... --Kralizec! (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark VI monorail

Your additions to Mark VI monorail look pretty good. One thing I can recommend is that you strongly consider citing sources when you make additions to Wikipedia articles. Personally, I am a big fan of using citation templates in conjunction with footnotes. For a good example of citations in practice, please see Tulsa, Oklahoma, which has recently been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community, and will soon be a featured article on the front page. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the source is already cited. from the other information that's there. I'll have to check. HeadMouse 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

The citations you added to the article look great! Nice work! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kinda hard since I am still learning HTML too. Now learning Wiki HeadMouse 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Welcome Back

Thanks HeadMouse 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Monorail sign.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail sign.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Headmouse, you haven't provided a fair use rationale for the image in question above - see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for an explaination of how to provide one. This is required as part of our WP:NFCC policy. Megapixie 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What more rationale do you want? It is a logo of an item just like the Licensing says. Even aftre reading the guide you linked above. It still follows thoes guidelines. It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods. The logotype is not used in such a way the a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logotype. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Headmouse. I'm trying to be helpful - this is part of the recently tightened image use policy on wikipedia as the result of a change in foundation policy. You need to provide an explicit fair use rationale as described in the guideline to the Image description page. What you have already written is fine - you just need to edit the image description page and add the rationale. Please note that I have no power to stop this process. If you don't add an explicit rationale to the image description page - it will be deleted. Please see Image:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg if you need a further example. Megapixie 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Walt Disney World Monorail System, even though required changes haven't 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. --T. Wiki 18:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave an explanation on why the notice was removed. "This article is not in need of a rewrite." HeadMouse 19:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Image:Toy mono_yelllow.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Toy mono_yelllow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --trey 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC) --trey 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Monorailcontrols4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Monorailcontrols4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --trey 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC) --trey 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to User talk:TREYWiki/WDW, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That is not your call. You have serious issues violating policy. I am developing the article to keep it from you. --trey 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

and anyways, you created a page. The real one is here--trey 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretending to be a user is not a good idea. Ever herd of history? Kralizec! was never there.--trey 00:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What vandalism,???? all I did was leave a comment. I didn't change anything on a page. and what continued vandalism??? You need to get your facts straight before you go accusing people of stuff. I wasn't pretending to be a user. I was quoting what he said in a comment left in the history. (DUH!) if you would read things you would know that. but no. you jump the gun and assume stuff. you know what ASSUME means right. it makes and ass out of you and me. keep that in mind.

I did not create the original WDW monorail article. I simply helped clean it up.

Creating a article on your user page does not make it the "real" article. get a life man. That article your creating is lower then the b rating the original got. When people do a search for the information, it's not taking them to your user page. it takes them to the original and REAL article. So you need to just accept that and move on to someone else to harass. HeadMouse 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walt Disney World Monorail System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --trey 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be in a harassment mood. Please stop messing up articles that have already been approved by claiming they need to be fixed. HeadMouse 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Help???

Hey, you think you could tell Trey to lighten up? He doesn't seem too..."friendly" to new users. He gave me an Only Warning for reverting the same stuff on the trains you did...several times...I am kinda new to the anti-vandal thing, but geez, that's kinda harsh. Thanks. Peace. Spartan-James 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Trey is on a power trip. he claims I vandalized his user page when all I did was leave a comment on the talk page. But I will keep this is this talk page so Wikipedia can see it' snot just you or me that he's harassing. HeadMouse 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Look at your archive. You've been warned MANY times. --trey 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG. dude, grow up ok. Those warning were a misunderstanding between them and me on the information I was writing. SO get off your power trip and go read the latest in the WDW monorail Talk page. HeadMouse 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

You have been reported for your 3RR violation, personal attacks, and massive breach of policy to an administrative noticeboard. It is now a matter of time before your punished.--trey 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how your the one breaching of policy by continuously adding irrelevant material and removing useful information. I'd say your the one that needs to be reported. Not sure exactly what your problem is, but I'd say you new to the game and truly are on a power trip. this article has been perfectly fine. has been reviewed and approved by Ellbeecee, Kralizec!, and MrFish (whom by the way is a member of the TrainWiki Project). So again I say. there is no need for this article to be rewritten. Adding new information is fine. but you are totally changing the article, making it hard to read and follow. Putting images in strange places, adding information that is not needed. I am also not the only member that thinks that the rewrite you are doing is not right. As you can read above, Spartan-James has even tried to revert your edits back to the original article, then you threatened him too. HeadMouse 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Walt Disney World Monorail System

Regarding the content dispute over Walt Disney World Monorail System, please remember to assume good faith with other editors. Reverting another editor's revert and calling it "vandalism" [1] is generally considered to be bad form. While many of us are frustrated over this dispute, declaring the edits of other established editors to be vandalism only serves to escalate emotions that are already running high. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But when Trey called my revert vandalism it's ok? Please look at other members reply under "HELP" in my talk page and see it' snot JUST me. HeadMouse 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Actually, I left similar "remember to assume good faith" notes for all three of you who were improperly characterizing each other's edits as vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But then you undid a revert claiming it was done as vandalism when the reasoning given said nothing of the sort. HeadMouse 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Warnings

1. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walt Disney World Monorail System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently do not seem to grasp the reasons for reverts. HeadMouse 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not. Removing the evacuation plans and riding tips was needed, see WP:NOT.--trey 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Reverting 8 times is unacceptable. 3+ users were reverting your edits, you caused the edit war. --trey 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine next time I will do an edit instead of a revert. Your article has no flow. the images are all off, you are removing information the belongs there. and adding information that don't need to be there. YOU caused the edit war. you have no idea what this article is even about. you just felt like coming in and messing it up. this article has been fine for several months now without your input. Again I say I am not the only member that thinks so. HeadMouse 18:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Well, if you can refrain from reverting the article long enough, then we'll see if anybody else tries to revert it to the other version. Or at least, if anybody else starts a discussion on the talk page to suggest that it should be reverted to the other version. So far, the article hasn't really been stable enough to gauge any opinions from other people yet. --Maelwys 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about ALL of the Walt Disney World Monorail system, that includes the evacuation plans and riding tips. This is information that would be useful to someone writing a paper or doing research. HeadMouse 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Civility

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Metros 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. HeadMouse 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

This is an incivil, personal attack. Metros 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling them that they need to chill out and let someone work THEN make a judgment. Whatever. HeadMouse 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling them to bite you? That's civil? Metros 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing un-signed comments to push what you want is generally not OK. Also, creating another page Walt Disney monorail System twice, is not acceptable, and next time, dont remove speedy notices, add {{hang on}}--trey 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The other article was created to give readers a comparison and let them choose. HeadMouse 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System

Your varient version of the monorail page was submitted for speedy deletion. I have declined the speedy, and instead have userfied the page at the above location. Creating varient pages in article space at varient names is a violation of WP:POINT. Working on your own versions in your user space is the more proper way to do things. Anyway, I know that you cannot currently respond to this FYI notice, as this talk page is protected, but I still felt I should let you know what has been done with the varient page. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop recreating the varient article in article space. This is disrupting the project to prove your point,which is expressly prohibited at WP:POINT. Continued recreation of this article will result in you being blocked again. Use the version I moved to your user space as your example version of your version. This is the proper place to show a varient version like you want to show. - TexasAndroid 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You are in violation of WP:POINT with your continual recreation of the varient monorail article in article space. If you recreate this article there one more time, you will be blocked for 24 hours. - TexasAndroid 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know (nor care) who you are Texas, but you have NO IDEA whats going on here, and it seems you fail to try and find out, you just block for no reason. HeadMouse 19:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the best thing to attack an administrator. --trey 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up the word attack. I didn't attack anyone. I told Tex that he blocked me without getting any details about the issue. But I am sure he talked to YOU about it and got YOUR point of view and that was enough right? HeadMouse 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't. He saw you running around starting edit wars and re-creating deleted material.--trey 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

and yet failed to find out the reasons, just ASSUMED (remember what I said about ASSUME)HeadMouse 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for the disruption of repeatedly recreating an article fork version in article space, even after I expressly refered you, multiple times to the proper way to handle your varient (the user-space version). You're right. I do not know the full picture of the situation, nor do I really need to know. I saw you disrupting the project, and warned you several times to stop the disruption, including pointing out to you the proper way to handle showing off a varient page. You chose to totally ignore my warnings, including a Final Warning that expressly said that, if you created it again, you would be blocked for 24 hours. You recreated it again, and thus, you are blocked. I may not know the full situation here, but I know disruption of the project, and what you were doing was definitely disruption. Thus the block. - TexasAndroid 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See, you DID ASSUME. I was TRYING to resolve the issue at hand. the same way it was suggested yesterday. No you didn't look into deatail. I'd say you DO NEED TO KNOW before you just block someone.HeadMouse 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I assumed nothing. Your actions were disruptive. You were creating a varient version of the article to prove a point that your version was better. That violates WP:POINT. Period. I gave you an outlet for your varient, and multiple warnings, including a Final Warning that stated exactly what was about to happen. You totally ignored all warnings. And thus we arrive at the current place and time. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And he has the right to do that. Being an administrator (like him), gives him the privilege to do that. That is why they invented the hell-hole known as WP:RfA. You could probably swim the pacific easier than passing a RfA, so if you do pass, you get certain privileges not available to editors like you and me.--trey 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to trey, I consider nothing HeadMouse has directed at me here so far to be attacks. He has every right to question my actions. He has done so. Even the complaints about my "assumptions" are not attacks, IMHO. I've been attacked before, and these are not attacks. :)

To HeadMouse. If you truely disagree with my block, and it is obvious that you do, I would encourage you to place a single Unblock request. Do keep in mind, though, as you found out last time, you don't get multiple shots at having your block reviewed. Placing multiple unblock requests after earlier ones are declined is likely to just result in this talk page being again protected. So if you plan to submit an unblock request, take your best shot at a convincing argument the first time. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OH NO I was blocked for placing unblocks yesterday. I'll just say this. You do your thing. I'll do mine. See you in 24 hrs. HeadMouse 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight (and I just looked things up). You were not blocked for placing unblocks. You were blocked for WP:3RR violation. You then placed three unblock requests, one after the other after the previous ones were declined. This *repeated* unblock request, after the earlier ones have been reviewed and declined, is considered abuse of the unblock ability. You are entitled to have an independant admin review the block. You are *not* entitled to have 3, 5, 10, 15, etc., admins review the block until you luck upon one who may agree with you. Each time you are blocked, you are fully entitled to ask for a review. It is the repeated requests after the unblock is declined that got you into trouble yesterday. And you were not "blocked" for the abuse, rather, this talk page was protected to prevent further abuse of the unblock templates.

In the end, it is your choice whether you ask for a review of the block or not. - TexasAndroid 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. that info is relevent --trey 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your own advice. YOU do not OWN the article. So when someone tries to edit it and clean it up WHILE LEAVIGN THE INFORMATIO YOU ADDED ALONE, you have no right to revert it over and over. Funny you violated the 3:RR rule and you were not blocked. HeadMouse 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The information on the talk page is relevant to the discussion. Also, when reverting vandalism, the 3RR is not in effect.--trey 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The information is archived if anyone needs to read it they can find it there. it has NOTHING to do with the "how this article looks" topic HeadMouse 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More than one topic can be present on a talk page. It has to do with what version is better, and your massive breach's of policy, and your adding unsigned comments pretending to be someone else.--trey 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt pretend to be anyone else. HeadMouse 18:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learn

Hey Trey, learn to create your own new toipcs, stop piggy backing off others. HeadMouse 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset are especially helpful references. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is also relevant to some complaints. Reading over those will help you understand what people are trying to point out to you. If you have any questions, put {{helpme}} on this talk page with your question underneath. You may also feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Vassyana 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a breather

HeadMouse, can we all stop and discuss this before something bad happens? At the current rate you are violating Wikipedia rules, I fear you are going to be blocked or worse. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I am trying to do, But no, they want tpo pwoer trip and go off the deep end. thats why I created the other article, toe have a comparison and work ALL the useful information into one article, NO Trey has to be Mr "I own Wikipedia" and delete everything. I was not deleting ANYTHING he added to the article, I was cleaning it up and adding more information. Now I am blocked Seems to be a thing or wikipedia. lets not listen to members, just block them. HeadMouse 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Members who consistently ignore Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are blocked in order to limit their damage to the rest of the project. You created Walt Disney monorail System three more times after an administrator told you not to. If a sports player ignored the rules of the game, surely you would expect a referee to eject them from the game. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if anyone had bothered to read the posting at the top they would see that it was created for a comparison. Again, no one bothers to find reasons they just power trip and go on a blocking rage.HeadMouse 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The justification at the top of your fork`ed article does not matter because POV-forks are not permitted under Wikipedia's rules. Do you agree that we should all follow the rules and be accountable if we violate them? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you agree that a resolution should be made and since it was suggested that it be done this way yesterday then why am I punished for doing EXACTLY what was suggested? HeadMouse

If we cannot agree that everyone must follow Wikipedia's guidelines and official policies, then unfortunately there is no point in continuing this conversation. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how I am the only one getting "punished" for not following the guidelines. when trey did countless reverts claiming they were to undo vandalism however the changes I was making to the article was in no way vandalism, as I have said countless times. I did NOT delete any of the information he put in the article. I was simply trying to clean it up, place images in better locations, and add additional information. But again, trey never bothered to look at that, he just assumed something and started reverting things. HeadMouse 02:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to the article were reverted because they did not follow existing Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically, these eight edits do not follow the Manual of Style. Using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as a guide, you should have then discussed your proposed changes on the talk page in order to work out your differences via collaborative effort. Reverting another editor's revert just gets everyone's emotions running high and sets the stage for a revert war. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So putting the images in place with the topic and adding information (MAPO) is against Wikipedia guidelines? (wouldn't surprise me at all) And since I was not done with the changes, NO ONE should have said or done anything until I was finished. THEN they could come in and say, "Hey you need to fix this and that." But like I said. trey just assumed stuff and went revert crazy. But it don't matter this article has gone to hell and as long as trey is in control it will remain that way. maybe one day he will get bored with it and I'll come back and fix it. till then I could care less what wikipedia has to say. This whole site is run like Hitler. 5 billion rules and codes that no one in the world could memorize or understand. Like I said. I really feel sorry for someone trying to look up information on the WDW Monorail and finding this article. HeadMouse 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You systematically reverted virtually every change made to the article by other editors (I counted over a dozen just in the past few days). While I have no doubt that you honestly want to improve the article, your unwillingness to allow others to edit and otherwise fix it is a clear violation of the ownership policy. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You mean EXACTLY what trey was doing? I am done with this conversation. HeadMouse 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets put it this way

trey, Maelwys , Kralizec! TexasAndroid, You guys have your power trips. When I come back I will try again to resolve this. I am sure trey will be there to revert it all back without reading and waiting to see the new additions, but thats fine. I'll be there to fight my side of the battle.

I will say this once mer, not that I expect any of you to actually grasp it. I was not removing anything that trey added. I was simply cleaning the article up and putting images in place and adding more useful information. I really feel sorry for people looking for information about the WDW Monorail and finding this article. They will be really confused. Maelwya suggested yesterday that we compare the 2 articles and combine them. so thats what I tried to do. No trey had to keep reverting (which he was not blocked for because he claimed it to be vandalism even though it wasn't). SO I created an copy article for people to compare to, and it was deleted, so I gave reason for creating that article, then I was blocked. Wonderful way to run a site. I see now why no respecting educational system accepts Wikipedia as a resource for papers written. Anyway. Maybe in 24 hrs when I return, some may have chilled out and will open their eyes and let a resolution take place instead of thinking they own WIkipedia. HeadMouse 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems a poor way to look at it. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a battleground, it's meant to be a collaboration. The problem is, right now nobody is collaborating. You're stating that you'll "try again to resolve this", but I've yet to see you actually try to RESOLVE anything. Simply reposting your own version of things as "better" isn't a resolution attempt, it's a coup. And saying that you'll "be there to fight [your] side of the battle" implies that you have completely the wrong state of mind for working on the article. I've written a critique for your version of the article, trying to explain some of the reasons why things were changed. Some of it looks better this way, some of it was extraneous information that goes against what Wikipedia is meant for, and some of it was just poorly formatted. But instead of simply posting links to guidelines and policies in the hopes that you'd read them, I tried to summarize some of the ideas there. If you've got more questions about the specific points, please feel free to question them and I'll go into more detail as necessary. --Maelwys 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You would see it that way. Your blinders have kept you and the others from seeing that I did NOT repost my version at all. All I did was to rearage the images to match up withthe topics better and to add more information. I did not remove, change, eor edit the information that trey posted. but once again, you all have failed to notice that. you just assumed things. This article is about the WDW Monorail System. if you are not going to post ANY AND ALL information about the system, then you shoul dnot post anything at all. Topics such as emergency evac and rider tips areall part of the WDW monorail system and blong in this article. They in no way violate the WP:NOT. But once again I say, that it don't matter. this article has gone to crap. It once was very informitive and easy to read. not it makes no sense why an image of the controls were placed with the introduction, and why importaint information was removed. This article has been hyjacked and really needs to be compleatly deleted and redone. But since it' sapperent that trey OWNS this article, then I guess it's his call. Maybe he should be the owner of the TrainsWiki Project too since he knows so much about it all. Wondering how many times he has even seen a WDW monorail. HeadMouse 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, you did infact attempt to merge the versions instead of simply taking it over. However, at this point instead of attempting to force through a merge, it seems like it would be a much better idea to discuss the problems, as I've done on your sandbox version of the article. I think declaring that a page needs to be deleted, just because some pictures were moved (in an attempt to spread them out more) and some extraneous information was deleted (because it's non-encyclopedic) is a bit of an overreaction. --Maelwys 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, pardon us for being skeptical of some of your claims. Your statement [2] that Walt Disney World Monorail System had been "accepted by the TrainsWiki Project" was disingenuous at best. The article's edit history clearly shows that on 9 May MrFish, a long-standing member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, removed a large chunk of the article noting "[minus] information that belongs in another article" [3]. You then immediately reverted his changes [4]. This illustrates the fact that while you are attempting to frame this content dispute as being one where outsiders are going against the goals of WikiProject Trains, your actions in reverting all edits to this article -including those made by other WikiProject Trains users- show that you are merely promoting your own agenda. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the broken record, you said this EXACT same thing once before. As I said I did not revert any edits to this last article. HeadMouse 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

More dishonesty? The edit history on Walt Disney World Monorail System clearly shows you did revert. Just twelve minutes before the article was protected, you reverted [5] TREYWiki (talk · contribs) with an edit summary of "CHILL OUT man. you dont give anyone time to finish anything. BACK OFF!!!!!!!" --Kralizec! (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I DID NOT REVERT IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE THAT WAS POSTED BEFORE TREY MADE HIS CHANGES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. STOP LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS!!!!!!! HeadMouse 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail license.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail license.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This image will be placed back in the article once a resolution is made. HeadMouse 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy

Do you play or closely follow any sports? Are there any games you really enjoy? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No. What does that have to do with anything? HeadMouse 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with an analogy to better explain some of the funky ways that Wikipedia works. What do you do for fun? Do you participate in any competitive or collaborate activities? Perhaps you play online computer games for fun or engage in sand art competitions ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Wikipedia is a messed up system That is why they are not acceptable resources for any educational system in the U.S. No teacher or professor I have even known has accepted a paper that used Wikipedia as a resource. In fact the 3 class I am currently taking it says in bold print that we are not to use Wikipedia for resource on papers we write. So why am I so concerned with this article you may be asking. Because there are people out there not doing school papers, but want great information and when you do a Google search for things now in days Wikipedai is with in the first 5 search results. SO when they click the link and open this article, I want them to have CLEAN, ACCURATE, READABLE, information. I have been researching all kinds of things all my life. and when I open a source and fine COOL information that not many people know (such as the Evac for the WDW monorail) I get excited. "Hey thats cool, I never knew that..." That is why I want this article (and the others) to be as full of "NEAT" information as possible. But You and trey and whats her name seem to not care about the information, just how the article looks. So don't worry about an analogy. I am a grown man I do not need an analogy. I know how the world works. HeadMouse 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that you do not care to understand why Wikipedia operates the way it does? I am sorry to hear that as it means that you will no doubt have a very frustrating experience here as virtually every editor who comes across you work will either revert it or fix it so that your edits conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and official policies. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

1. Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself, as you did with Image:Monorail license.jpg. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Image:Monorail license.jpg. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah you love looking for reasons to block me don't you. DELETE THE DANG IMAGE I'll upload it later. HeadMouse 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

   And stop bothering me I am busy. HeadMouse 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Walt Disney World Monorail System. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

   Please do not trash up the article making it look like crap with all those boxes when you have not even given me time to finish. THANK YOU HeadMouse 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Walt Disney World Monorail System. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
5. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walt Disney World Monorail System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
6. With regards to your comments on Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:HeadMouse. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:HeadMouse. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tags

I DID use the hang on tag. No one seemed to want to look at that. I'll just have to re upload the image later. HeadMouse 01:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on the tag say "If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{hangon}} to the top of this page, directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this image page should not be deleted on its talk page." No where does it say to remove the tag. Please follow the instructions on the tag. This is especially important because if the image is deleted via the speedy deletion process), then any future uploads of the same image will be deleted on sight by the administrators. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ahem I DID ADD THE HANG ON TAG AND I DID GIVE AN EXPLANATION IN THE TALK PAGE, BUT NO ONE WANTED TO READ IT. HeadMouse 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The point that Kralizec was trying to make is that you removed the deletion tag when you added your hangon tag; they should both be on the page. Hangon does not replace the speedy deletion tag. The reason that the image was tagged for deletion in the first place is that the image description page said that it was a logo, when it is clearly not. If the image continues to be labeled as a logo, it will probably be deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The point you are both over looking is the fact that I checked with the Wikipedia guide lines on this before I uploaded and was told it was ok. HeadMouse 02:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walt Disney World Monorail System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Metros 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please refrain from attacking other editors, as you did here and here. It is not appreciated. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Walt Disney World Monorail System, you will be blocked from editing. Stop removing templates! --trey 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I AM ADDING REFERENCES AND AM REMOVING THE TAGS AS I GO. SO STICK YOUR LAST WARNING!!!HeadMouse 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The sections need removed, not referenced. --trey 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

-Kralizec! said to reference them. SO again GO AWAY!!! HeadMouse 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you try to own it. I've sat out this round of your usual edit wars, meanwhile, you edit war with 5 users and push you POV. --trey 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No trey YOU try to own it, with comments like Comments (other than those from HeadMouse) would be helpful I did not remove your references, if you go back in the history you will see the refs I removed went no where. and there were only 2 of them there. I try to keep this article clean and Presentable. FUNNY HOW THIS ARTICLE WAS JUST FINE UNTIL YOU CAME ALONG ANS MESSED IT UP!!! I do not care to hear anything else you have to say so please do not post messages in my talk page. I will remove them.HeadMouse 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please realize continued use of the unblock request template can result in this page being protected for the duration of the block. Your request has been declined. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please realize tat I feel this block in unjust and I will fight it till it's lifted. I do have that right. This is not a dictatorship. HeadMouse 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail license.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail license.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This image is not Orphaned, it WILL be placed back in the article soon. HeadMouse 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Monorail sign.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail sign.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This image is not Orphaned, it WILL be placed back in the article soon HeadMouse 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Monorail article.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Monorail article.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Yamla 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why so stubborn?

Why do you seem to have so many problems working with other editors, or taking advice from others, or even considering other ideas? You keep insisting that you're being reasonable and Kraz, Trey, myself, and anybody else that tries to edit the article is trying to "own" it. But we're all working just fine with each other, none of us are being possessive about what the others are doing. We seem to have no problems at all discussing problems and trying to work together to find possible solutions, instead of just bull-heading ideas through. Did you ever stop to think that just maybe, we're not the owns with ownership problems who're unable to work together? Just possibly, the problem is that you're still having trouble understanding how wikipedia is supposed to work, and how to follow the policies and guidelines to make the article fit in line with how Wikipedia is supposed to look, instead of just what you personally want it to look like? Just curious... --Maelwys 16:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has had to be protected 3+ times because of ub-block abuse. Also, he continues with WP:MoS violations and WP:OWN, WP:POINT, and I think he is being this.20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TREYWiki (talk • contribs)

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

Thank you for uploading Image:Monorailcard.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Monorailcard.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Monorailcard.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Yamla 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problems

You are having problems meeting our requirements for fair-use images. Please do not upload or use any more images until you have read and understood WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And you have problems understanding that I put a reason/rational for the image. I will upload what I want. HeadMouse 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages and edit summaries

Hi there, just a friendly reminder to be civil in your edit summaries and posts to talk pages. Thanks. Exploding Boy 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from an image you uploaded, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --trey 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove a speedy anything from that article so STFU trey and stop looking for reasons to block me. I told you I don't want you to say ANYTHING on my talk page. HeadMouse 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You removed a caption stating the image is a speedy deletion candidate. You have been throughly warned.--trey 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not set for deletion anymore. it' sunder review. HeadMouse 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No its not. You cannot remove deletion notices from images and the article they are in. This is called vandalism and will not be tollarated. You cannot randomly put images you uploaded "sunder review".--trey 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

First off. you can shove off on your "sunder review" comment. I can go through EVERY post you have made and point out misspellings. for example will not be tollarated. tolerated is the correct spelling. So you can get off on that. Second, the image IS under review. it's being worked on to bring it into WP guidelines. So once again. I DO NOT WANT ANY COMMENTS FROM YOU ON MY TALK PAGE!!!! HeadMouse 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationales

Please read Help:Image page which explains in detail how to go about writing a detailed fair-use rationale. Comments such as "this is the reason I uploaded the image. like it or lump it. if it's deleted I'll upload it again. the new "must give detailed reason for uploading images" rule is stupid. I uploaded the image to use in an article, nuff said." will get you blocked if you continue. If you are uploading images, you must adhere to our policies which includes a detailed fair-use rationale. Please also see WP:CIVIL. --Yamla 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for your repeated violations of WP:3RR on Walt Disney World Monorail System and for edits such as this where you remove the no-rationale tag from an image missing a mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. Please take this time to consider whether you are willing to abide by Wikipedia policies in the future. If you are, you are welcome to resume editing once the block expires. --Yamla 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Every single fair-use image license points you to the page which explains about detailed fair-use rationales. In case you missed it, I linked to it here. You have shown no serious effort to even attempt to adhere to our policies regarding rationales. Furthermore, your unblock request does not explain your 3RR violation. --Yamla 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said. if Wikipedia wants the rational to read a certain way, then they need to make a from and let users fill in the blanks. I an not a writer, I do not know EXACTLY what WP wants the rational to say. HeadMouse 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, in response to unblock request rather than comment immediately above) This is simply not accurate. See: [6] [7] [8]. See the user's contribution log for more details. --Yamla 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually MY talk page has only been protected 2wice. I am NOt abusing the unblock. I am giving reason for request like you asked for. You had already replied to the first one when I noticed there were 2 reasons on the original block. Also I DO NO OWN the article. funny how I keep getting blamed for this. yet every time I make a little edit. TREY goes in and reverts it back like he OWNS the article. But he never gets blocked for it. The examples you gave above are NOT reverts. I never REVERTED anything. I simply was fixing the problem. But once again, before the problem could be fixed. Someone had to jump in and assume crap and change things back before anything could be fixed. Then when I try once again to fix the problem I get blocked.HeadMouse 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Because you were caught twice altering other people's comments on this page, the page has been protected. The protection will automatically expire in 24 hours. --Yamla 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize to you. it appeared that YOU left the "don't be a dick" comment since trey was too chicken sh!t to sign his comment. So I'm sorry for replacing the word with your name, it should have been replaced with his name. but I am removing it all together since I now know it was him and have told him not to leave comments on my talk page anymore. HeadMouse 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

You have been declined the unblock. If you do not place more unblock requests, you will not have this talk page blocked in the mean-time. You are now blocked for a week. The images are subject to deletion in less time baring good Fair Use rationals being added. If you can create the rationals, I would be willing to place them on the image pages before they are deleted, to see if they will stand up to scrutiny. (Strike comment above. Page got blocked for altering other people's comments, yet another nono. But that is only for 24 hours, so that does not effect the core of what I am writing.)

As for how you can create the rationals, please, please read the link that Yamla gave you above. Help:Image page. This lays out how Fair Use rationals need to be done, and even gives a template that you can use to format yours. It also gives links to the Fair Use page itself with more info on what are considered proper Fair Use rationals. Fair Use allows the use of non-free images only under very specific reasons. As the uploader, and the one who wants to use the images, it is your responsibility to detail the rationals under which you think that the image can legally be used on the project as Fair Use. Your responsibility. Either you provide the use, or you will not be able to use your images. Those are the choices. Saying that you cannot do it, and want someone else to do it for you is simply not going to work. You are the one who wants to use the images, so it is on you, and only you, to justify their use. I am willing to play messenger with the Fair Use rationals, should you come up with them before the images are deleted, but you must still be the one to supply the rationals.

On the longer term, I have to say that I see you headed on a fast track to getting yourself banned from the project, if only by getting longer and longer blocks. Comments like this show little reguard for the project and the rules under which it operates. But those rules are there for good reasons, and they really are not negotiable. You need to decide what you really want out of this, and how best to effectively get what you want. Do you want to actually make improvements to the article? Or do you want a series of increasing blocks and your continued frustration? Because your actions are fast leading you towards the second option, not the first. The rules are there. That is not going to change. You may very well dislike the rules, but they are still there, and you are still subject to them if you want to edit on the project. If you cannot accept this, I forsee your continued time here is likely to be fairly short, and fairly frustrating for you. This is not a threat, or a warning, but rather a prediction of the future if things do not change. - TexasAndroid 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it's ok, for someone to call me a dick, but it's not ok for me to say bite me? Tell you what. All of you. Everyone involved in this entire ordeal. You can ALL bite me and you all need to stop being dicks. As for the monorail article. As I said in that talk page.

I am tired of the crap from all of you. I am done trying to keep this article readable and clean. You all can screw this article up all you want. I am tired of (personal attack removed) not waiting till someone is finished, just assuming that I have converted the entire article back to the original. they didn't bother to look and see that it's the same article, just cleaned up some with new information added. It's also bull shit that rider tips, a major part of the WDW monorail system, is removed, but the toy remained, BOTH are part of the WDW monorail experience. But who cares about the content of the articles, as long as it looks good and meets some restarted code of style. Who cares that references that went no where were removed. lets block the guy for trying to give good refs to non broken links. Also odd that there is a ref to a site that refs back to this article. Now we can't have a ref to a legit site with legit information just because it's a site by the editor, but we CAN have a ref to a site that send you in circles back to this article. But as I said, this article has gone to hell. It is no longer a good resource for information. I will wait and maybe in enough time trey, Kralizec!, Maelwys , and the rest will stop trying to own this article and will let other editors fix it up. Until then this article will remain crap. Again I say, I feel sorry for anyone doing research trying to find info on the WDW monorail system and finding this article. So go have fun trashing this article. I'll keep an eye on it and maybe come back later. I do not know why I even started making edits after that but I won't anymore. That article is FUBAR and will remain that way until those mentioned above leave it alone. As for the images used in the articles. I could really care less if they get deleted or not. I am tired of trying to share knowledge with you all. You can all think you know whatever you want about the WDW monorail. It'll show how restarted you really are. HeadMouse 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Monorail fire article.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Monorail fire article.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Yamla 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't start with this crap again. I have a fair use rational. READ IT!! HeadMouse 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient fair-use rationale. Read WP:FURG. --Yamla 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ra·tion·ale /ˌræʃəˈnæl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rash-uh-nal] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something. 2. a statement of reasons. 3. a reasoned exposition of principles.

So my rational is "This is a scan from The Orlando Sentinel News paper. An article with great information about the monorail fire at Walt Disney World in 1985. This image is to be used in the articles that discuss the fire and to used for reference." HeadMouse 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So once again I say. If Wikipedia wants it to read a certain way, then make a form and let use fill in the blanks. HeadMouse 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that is completely unacceptable. Again, see WP:FURG. I am tired of harping on WP:FU with you. If you are unwilling to abide by our policies, you are not to upload or use any more images. However, if you are willing to abide by these policies, you are more than welcome to upload images. WP:FURG gives information on how to structure a rationale. Your statement, "If Wikipedia wants it to read a certain way, then make a form and let use fill in the blanks", appears to be a violation of WP:POINT. --Yamla 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah everything I say and do appear to be some kind of violation to you. If you are so tired fo whatever. then let someone else deal with it. HeadMouse 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationales must be for a single specific article only and must explain why you need the fair-use image in that article. --Yamla 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. this image is used in ONE article and it is the template that WP offers. HeadMouse 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you have not identified which article or why we need to use that image in that article. If you send me an email, I'll help you write up an acceptable rationale for this image (or we can determine that the image cannot be used). --Yamla 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the image page it tells which articles the image is being used in. The template has no place for that information. I am trying to follow WP and use THEIR template and yet you still have to harass me. I am about to delete the image myself since it seems you don't want to share the information in the article. HeadMouse 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a template in place, you going to remove the speedy deletion? HeadMouse 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, you cannot delete an image yourself. Ask an administer to do it for you, or tag it for speedy deletion.--trey 03:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reprotected

Your continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (in this case, calling someone a chicken shit) has resulted in the protection of this page until your block expires. Unless you are willing to behave in a civil manner, you are not welcome to contribute. Now, I'm sure you have a lot of quality information to contribute and I would love to see you calm down and work with other editors. I truly hope that you are able to do so once your block expires. But please consider this your final warning. The behaviour you have been demonstrating is inappropriate and will not be tolerated here. --Yamla 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your block timer has been reset due to your abusive sockpuppeteering. The only reason you have not been blocked indefinitely is that I believe you may not have known about this policy. --Yamla 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that this is over I will tell you this. I was not sockpuppeteering. I have read the comments on the WDW monorail talk page. I have no idea who bigdog whatever is. I think it's sad that they got blocked just because they said they kinda agree with me. But whatever. As is the Wikipedia way. Shoot first ask questions later. HeadMouse 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about proving your innocence, we could make a requests for checkuser. However if the checkuser shows that both accounts have been editing via the same IP address, then both might well be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Considering Yamla (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) gave you about the minimum possible slap on the wrist, it is probably better to say "sorry, did not know it was against the rules, my bad!" and just leave well enough alone. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do a check user PLEASE!!!! But I will tell you this much on your IP address checks. They are not reliable. You can check my IP address and see I do most my edits from home. (this IP addres I am on now) but there have been once or twice I have done edits from school which shares one IP for ALL comps. But since I was no it school for the past week, I can not say what that IP address is. But yes please do an IP address check. HeadMouse 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why bother? It doesn't affect you anymore at this point. If BigDog wanted to do a checkuser to clear his name (since he's the one blocked by this) then he can request one. But the fact that he didn't even briefly try to argue against the sockpuppeteer charge just makes him look more like a sockpuppet, really... --Maelwys 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How can one fight when they are blocked? HeadMouse 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

lol! Pretty funny question from somebody so intimately familiar with the "unblock" tag as you are. ;-) --Maelwys 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well according to bigdogs user page it says "This user is a sock puppet of HeadMouse, and has been blocked indefinitely." if I saw that on my talk page I was guess that I could not use the unblock tag. On top of that your statement shows that you assume they are on every day. This person kinda just popped up. According to their logs, they have been a member since January so I doubt they were created to just argue on this topic. HeadMouse 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, feel free to file a request at WP:RFCU. However as 100% of the edits ever made by Bigdog1979 (talk · contribs) were coming to your defense, I suspect the chances of a checkuser resulting in anything other than WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT are vanishingly small. As I said above, you are probably best served by just chalking it up to a learning experience and leaving well enough alone. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If your so sure that it's a sockpuppet, then do your check. I personally don't care. just feel bad that someone got blocked just for saying they agree with me. I read all the comments they made. They didn't all defend me. HeadMouse 04:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR violation

I have reported your three-revert rule violation on Walt Disney World Monorail System to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You may wish to comment there. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 07:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I did not violate the 3RR rule I see no need in this being reported. Cheers HeadMouse 14:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what the WP:3RR rule is ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

I most definitely did NOT break the 3RR rule. Show me where. HeadMouse 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how I broke the 3RR rule. I did not change the same edit more then 3 times. HeadMouse 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. It doesn't have to be the same edit. Here is a list:

• Initial edit, gold to silver
• Initial edit, colour change
• Revert 1, colour change (and likely violation of WP:MOSCOLOR)
• Revert 2, readding an image (thus, a revert)
• Revert 3, color
• Revert 4, gold to silver
• Revert 5, gold to silver

As you can see, five reverts well within twenty four hours. A clear violation of WP:3RR. --Yamla 15:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then heck, ANYONE that makes an edit and then sees it as a mistake and goes back and fixes it more then 3 times breaks this rule. Since I am not the only one that thinks this last time was not me being a jerk trying to have an edit war. I think this block should be reviewed again. Thanks. HeadMouse 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also. the link trey ORIGINALLY posted for WP:MOSCOLOR was a RED link and went to a article that did not exist. 2) Re adding the image was to try and fix the rational. that does NOT count as a revert. the original image link was broken. so I FIXED it. not REVERT. 3) The last to you posted. I NEVER changed it from GOLD to SILVER. Trey did that. so again. I DID NOT break the 3RR rule. HeadMouse 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold to silver, silver to gold, the point is that you were reverting someone else's edits. And even if you don't count reinserting the image as a revert, you still made four reverts so were clearly in violation of WP:3RR (not that 3RR guarantees you three reverts, mind you). I am sorry you believe you did not violate 3RR but I assure you that you did. Rather than protesting your innocence, you should take time to actually read these policies. --Yamla 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are wrong on this. I did not make 3 reverts at all. I added some information (the image) I fixed some incorrect information (sliver-gold) so if you want to count ACTUALY reverts, then changing the COLORS which was 2wice. I am honestly starting to belive you and trey are doign everything in your power to get me blocked forever. HeadMouse 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. These count as reverts. You are reverting someone else's change. End of story. If you do not agree, you are free to make one more unblock request. However, I warn you that the blocking admin knows these are reverts, I know they are reverts, the person who reported you knows these are reverts, and anyone else who examined your case on the 3RR noticeboard knew they were reverts. --Yamla 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, see you are misreading normal edits as reverts. When I reverted the COLORS, then those (both of them) were reverts. See when I saw that trey had reverted them the last time I did NOT change them back because I did not want to break the 3RR, So I went on to other edits. Like the silver to gold, I was correcting misinformation. So you are misreading edits as reverts. HeadMouse 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

These were reverts. I am sorry you do not believe it but you are the only one. And I'll note that your changes were not cited, in violation of WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. --Yamla 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny. I think I did cite my sources. So you can stop looking for excuses. YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS AND YOU KNOW IT. You can block me, protect my talk page, whatever you want. when I come back, you will still be wrong on this and I will still tell you how wrong you are. HeadMouse 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems our friend is back to his old self threatening to start yet another edit war. This needs to be (indef) stopped.--trey 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trey, stop trying to bait him and just back off. --Maelwys 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This edit, for one, shows no evidence of you adding a citation. You now seem to be trolling. If you truly believe you did not commit a 3RR despite at least three people telling you that you clearly did, ask for another unblock review. Further trolling will result in this page being protected, though, so I strongly advise you to consider carefully your next step. --Yamla 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats the point in asking for another unblock? so that you can come along and denie it and the protect my talk page for unblock abuse? HeadMouse 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, to be honest, I am a bit baffled by your statement that you did not violate the 3RR rule. Assuming you are not just trolling, I will attempt to explain it in more detail with time-tagged diffs.

First, if you are not familiar with the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, it states (in part):

“

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

”

Looking at the edit history of Walt Disney World Monorail System, for the 28 minutes following 23:38 on July 4th, we see the following reverts:

1. 23:38 - you reverted Trey`s edit from 16:08 that removed the font colours and changed the 1985 fire colour
2. 23:44 - you reverted Metros`s 19:34 edit that removed the newspaper article that does not meet WP:FU guidelines
3. 23:45 - you reverted Trey`s 23:41 edit that again removed the colours
4. 00:00 - you reverted Trey`s 23:50 edit that again changed the 1985 fire colour
5. 00:06 - you reverted Trey`s 00:03 edit that again change the 1985 fire colour

As we can see, you reverted the article five times in just 28 minutes, which is a clear 3RR violation. Like Maelwys below, I applaud your newly demonstrated restraint and appreciate the fact that you are no longer implementing broad-sweeping changes. However the fact remains that edit warring like this like this benefits no one and will only serve to earn you longer and longer blocks for disrupting the project. I hope this helps you understand. Best wishes, Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So according to what you just said ANY edit made to an article counts as a revert and any member making more then 3 edits at all is violating the 3RR. Odd. Again I say I did not violate the rule. the normal edits I made (adding the image back since the original image was broken) and correcting the information are just edits. now if I had fought with trey over the colors thing. I could see this as a violation. I think HiDrNick! is a close friend of trey and/or just wants to see me blocked again. He had NOTHING else to contribute other then "I'm reporting you". I do not see how correcting incorrect information is disrupting the project. a simple "Hey you need to cite the facts" would have been fine. No trey has to do whatever he can to get me blocked again. I am really getting tired of it. Why is he not being punished for reverting my fixes over and over? he did not site that is was indeed silver not gold. I just think it' snot fair for me to get blocked for trying to help, when he reverted the same edits 3 or more times and nothing happens. I think this time I truly am going to just walk away from this article. Now trey is trying to OWN it and to be honest. I am tired of it all. So no I am not going to request another unblock, I don't want to "abuse" it. I'll just wait my 99 hours *roll eyes* and when I come back. I will remove the WDW monorail system from my watch list and you all can do as you wish. Kralizec!, Maelwys, I thank you both for trying to help out and teach me a few WP things. sorry for being a jerk about some of it. trey, Yamla, words can not express how I feel about you two. Peace and God bless you all. HeadMouse 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Heyo. I don't know TREYWiki in real life or anything like that, he just happens to edit this article on my watchlist. TREYWiki seems like a stand-up guy and everything, but you should know that I reported him on the 3RR noticeboard right along with you. You were both edit waring, and you both broke the 3RR. The blocking administrator choose not to block TREYWiki, and that's his prerogative. I would have acted differently, but hey, I'm not an administrator. My interest in this is seeing the article improve, the page unprotected, and the edit warring stop. ➪HiDrNick! 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." Your edits were undoing the actions of another editor. That that editor may have been undoing your actions is irrelevant. I truly do not understand why this is so hard for you to understand. --Yamla 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert. if a member post incorrect information and another person comes along and fixes it, then that is undoing the actions of another editor and is therefor a revert. I do not see why it is so hard for you to understand you are wrong on this. the only true revert I made was the colors which I reverted twice only. when I changed the solver to gold I even told trey a source to find proof. But it's ok. like i said. I am done with this. when my block is over I will take this article off my list and let trey or whoever wants trash it all they want. HeadMouse 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now now, don't get too excited. You are welcome to contribute helpfully. Check out the Welcome Page.--trey 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You will never know how much I wish there was a way to block you from posting on my talk page. I am telling you one last time GO AWAY!!!!! HeadMouse 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." --Yamla 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LoL trey^{Sex Me} 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." "So like i said above. then according to what your saying. ANY edit is a revert." HeadMouse 04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Words of Encouragement

Hey Headmouse, I just wanted to drop you a quick note of encouragement here. In your last couple rounds of editing you have started to show much more restraint in your edits, and made less broad-sweeping changes. Hopefully that's not just because you haven't been around long enough to warm up to those. ;-) But I do think that you are making progress in learning more about the way that things work here, and I hope that you get a chance to stay around long enough to make more meaningful contributions once you've learned the rest of the procedures here. If you have any questions about those things, or want any more suggestions on how to better improve things in non-distruptive ways, feel free to drop me a line (either here while you're on your ban, or on my own talk page later).

And for what it's worth, I do think that Trey was baiting you during last night's edit war. You just need to learn to not take the bait, and lay off the personal attacks. Revert-wars are never the correct answer, at some point you have to realize that if there's two editors just bumping heads you need to go discuss things on the talk page instead of constantly reverting each other. --Maelwys 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Not real sure what you are talking about Maelways. This policy clearly states colors are not to be used for decoration. Read some HeadMouse edit summaries for decoration evidence.
2. Taking it to talk and then being called a pain in the ass seems a little disruptive.
3. HeadMouse violently uploading copyrighted newspaper articles (that would qualify for fair use on a newspaper article, not a Disney one) and attempting to use a black and white scan to identify a color.
4. This all seems a little much, keeping articles within policy so disabled people can read them, is not bad.
5. Having his "friends" or whatever troll on my talk page seems a bit excessive.--trey 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not arguing against the policy, I don't like the colour there either. I just think that there's better ways to get that across to somebody rather than getting into an edit war and trying to get him banned again.
2. I completely agree, as I noted above. Insults never have any place in a discussion, and he crossed a line with that.
3. I've made comments on that image page earlier today.
4. Although I agree that the colours look out of place there and the article is better off without them (they're purely unnecessary decoration), I do feel inclined to point out that your quoting of accessibility rules to justify that is incorrect. Accessibility clearly states "Using color alone to convey information (color coding) should not be done." (emphasis from page). So if it said "-<pink>Train</pink> -<purple>Train</purple>", etc that would be against WP:WAI, but in this case it isn't.
5. If you're referring to Thumperward, I happen to agree with him in this case. The entire debacle last night was disruptive from both of you. --Maelwys 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #5 above; I have been called many thing by many people, but I do not think HeadMouse would ever call me a friend. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

not talking about you.--trey 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One should also point out in regards to Trey's #5 above, that if four different people say ([9], [10], [11], [12]) that Trey went too far this time, perhaps it is true. Especially when those four have definitely not been on HeadMouse`s "side" of this content dispute. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No where did I say the newspaper article was proof of the color of the monorail that was on fire. Please get your facts clear before you ASSUME stuff. In fact I even gave you a link to another site that had the proof. Also how is uploading an image violent ? I re uploaded the image to try and fix the rational. HeadMouse 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

trey, you need to grow up man. As with the sockpuppet thing, I have no idea who is on your talk page. Just because other people agree that you need to chill out don't mean they know me and we're friends. See, not everyone in the world thinks the same way you do. So when they comment on your actions, you assume they are me or my friends. You really need to step back and look around. You got me blocked again, there will NOT be another time. HeadMouse 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Monorail fire newspaper article.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Monorail fire newspaper article.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --trey 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) --trey 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

and seeing how you (trey) got me blocked again, I can't add my comment to the discussion. HeadMouse 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The following are comments from that discussion:

* Orphaned, unencyclopedic, fair use violation. It's been used in monorail articles (not newspaper ones). Editor with 8 entries in blocklog has re-uploaded this 3 times. --trey 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Several of your deletion reasonings are invalid/incorrect. The image is orphaned because you removed it from the article right before the article was protected (so it can't be re added anytime soon), the number of entries in a users blocklog are irrelevant to the validity of an image they upload, and it was re uploaded because it'd been previously speedy deleted before the user had a chance to figure out how fair use criteria worked. --Maelwys 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Now for my reply: I agree with Maelwys, the image was "Orphaned" because it was removed before it could be fixed to meet WP guidelines. The image currently meets the rational guidelines. Of course the image is used in articles about the monorail. its an image of a newspaper article about a monorail fire. Where else should it be used. This image has been uploaded 3 times, however you you would look at reasons. 1st upload the image was "orphaned" by trey removing it from the article just before it was protected. it was then deleted. 2nd upload I am guessing it did not meet the correct rational. 3rd upload. attempt to correct the rational (and so far I think it is good since I have not had any comments about it being a wrong rational. So I think the deletion tags need to be removed from this image. If this image still does not meet the rational guidelines, let me know (anyone but trey) and I'll try and fix it. HeadMouse 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New comment:

1. Delete. WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #11. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The information in the newspaper article can NOT be used to make an original article. It is simply a reference to show that a certain even did take place. HeadMouse 05:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On that note. I am getting real tired of fighting for this damn news paper article. Delete the damn thing. I will not upload it again. the VERY BRIEF summery given at The Orlando Sentinel web site is all you get. if you want more, then pay for the articles yourself. I am tired of trying to be nice. People like Trey and Yamla really make Wikipedia a living hell. I have to say that the very first day I came to Wp and Kralizec! started undoing everything I did. I thought he was a jerk. then I learned that he was just trying to teach me. So I started to try and learn. but then when people like the 2 mentioned above started harassing me over and over, it' became too much. So I assure you all. EVERYONE on here. when I come back. you need not worry about me sharing information on the monorails. in fact I will be removing myself from the task force. Any images I have uploaded to use will be removed since they are not needed anyways. whoever can feel free to remove any information I have added to the articles. feel free to totaly clear them and start fresh if you like. I care not. The WP Nazi's have won. HeadMouse 05:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Its been speedy-ed, per your request.trey^{Sex Me} 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering

Beginning to wonder if Yamla and trey are either one in the same or they got something going on. they seem to be the only ones harassing me on this. They both seem to think they are never wrong even when they are, they both think they own articles or even all of Wikipedia, they both keep trying to egg me into a fight. Yep I'd say there is something weird going on there. HeadMouse 04:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Best not to accuse an admin with 50,000 edits (Yamla) of sockpuppetry.13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes trey, but apparently it's ok to accuse me of being a sockpuppet when there is not proof. HeadMouse 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yamla and Trey have completely different editing styles. They are not at all likely to be the same person. Trey is in conflict with you often. This is why he frequently talks to you (BTW, I really think it would be good if Trey would not post here so often; it only inflames the situation). As for Yamla, he is likely keeping an eye on you, and given how disruptive you have been recently, who can blame him? No reason to believe they are the same. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah I have been SOOOOOO disruptive, having trey start crap and whatever. I'd say since you have NO IDEA whats really going on, then move along. HeadMouse 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. —trey^jay–jay 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is being un civil so STFU. HeadMouse 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? —trey^jay–jay 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not until you jumped in and started crap. See. things are so much more calm and peaceful when your not around. Take the hint. HeadMouse 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Things are also peaceful when you are serving your quadrillionth block.—trey^jay–jay 02:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it wasn't for you being this then I wouldn't have been blocked this last time. HeadMouse 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==blah==

Hello HM. Just wondering, has your block expired? —trey^jay–jay 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I, TREYWiki, give you this barnstar of good humor. Your messages have always made me giggle. I really hope this is your last block and you can edit without conflict.—treyjay–jay 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done

No more talk about "the" article. I am done with it. Any comments left on this talk page about it will be removed. HeadMouse 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta image

Please stop changing the svg image to your jpg image file. It has been explained to you that using that type of file is more appropriate for this kind of image. Do not change it again. Metros 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I AM THE CREATOR OF THE IMAGE AND I DID NOT GIVE RIGHT TO HAVE IT CHANGED AND RE HOSTED. HeadMouse 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the policy when you upload: All user-created images must be released under a "free" license. For purposes of Wikipedia, "free" does not merely mean that you don't charge for it, but it means that you allow everyone to use, alter, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This release is not revocable.

It clearly states things can be done to it. Metros 03:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you add your image to the article one more time, you will be blocked for disruption. Metros 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LEAVE IT ALONE. PERIOD. If Wikipedia didn't want jpeg files then they need to block them. HeadMouse 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IT'S MY IMAGE!!! HeadMouse 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Metros 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and in 2 weeks I will put the image right back. you have NO RIGHT to take MY IMAGE and alter it in ANY WAY, re host it and take away my credit. EDIT: RETRACTING COMMENT.HeadMouse 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And then in two weeks you will be blocked again and presumably for longer time. Metros 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, sorry to see you ran into some issues and were blocked. As to the image in question, when you released it into the public domain, you relinquished all rights to the image and essentially gave permission for anyone to do anything to it. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not right. that is saying that I can come onto Wikipedia and take any image I see and use it however I want just because the creator released it to WP HeadMouse 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the images you uploaded to WikiPedia were tagged with the {{PD-self}} license. This copyright notice states in part: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain ... I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions." When you released the images into the public domain, you voluntarily abrogated both your ownership and control of the images. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly the case for all images released to the public domain, which you did to Image:Lime delta.jpg. You explicitly granted everyone the right to use that image for any purpose and without any conditions. Public-domain images most certainly may be altered and reuploaded, and nobody is required to give you any credit. You released it to the public domain. In any case, the image in question almost certainly would not be eligible for copyright protection anyway. --Yamla 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"...to use this work for any purpose..." Not to change this work. and "any purpose" does not mean alter either. It means this image can be used for more then the article it was originaly intended for.HeadMouse 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When you upload one of your own creations to Wikipedia, under step #2, you are releasing your work under a free license. The upload page states:

“

All user-created images must be released under a "free" license. For purposes of Wikipedia, "free" does not merely mean that you don't charge for it, but it means that you allow everyone to use, alter, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This release is not revocable. Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for "non-commercial" use, licensed only to Wikipedia, for which permission is required for reuse, or that do not permit derivative works to be created. Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content and having images encumbered by restrictive licensing schemes runs counter to that mission. Any image released under a restrictive license will be deleted on sight.

”

So in a sense, yes, you already gave permission for anyone to do anything to the image ... including translate it into an .svg image format. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System

User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:HeadMouse/Walt Disney monorail System during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ➪HiDrNick! 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinda hard to discuss it when I am blocked for no reason. HeadMouse 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the script that I use adds these notifications automatically. This is just an old copy of an article that you copied to your userspace. We try not to keep them around for very long, since someone might confuse it with the actual Wikipedia article on the subject. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|It is MY IMAGE. Altering it and changing it and re-hosting it takes the credit away from me. I am no longer connected in any way to the image. Wikipedia is FULL of jpeg images. why should this one be any different? Wanted to add to the reviewing Admin to please read the comments below I asked Dr Nick about the image and see that an agreement has been made. Thank You.}}

The request above would be declined, but I think we're on our way to a better request. Nick is giving you good advice below, and his adding your name as a credit in the new image was the right move. Do you want to try again?--chaser - t 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to the reviewing administrator: The image in question is Image:Lime delta.jpg, which was converted to Image:Lime delta.svg. ➪HiDrNick! 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick. You really need to read the archive. Guest Relations is how it should be and WILL be changed back when I get off block. If you know NOTHING about Disney, then don't try to make changes. HeadMouse 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show a link to where in the archives that was decided? I can't find it in archive 1 or 2. Thanks, Metros 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a reply from Meegs or Maelwys HeadMouse 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kungaloosh! Actually, I am a former WDW Cast Member, which is what spurns my particular interest in this article. I was an Epcot Fasspass Host, origin 060/5EC. ➪HiDrNick! 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. My father retired from WDW 20 years. So you know for fact it is Guest Relations

It's a question of context. Obviously, we could say "Guest Relations Cast Member" or "Guest Relations Tipboard" when we're talking about people in snazzy plaid vests and blue blazers. However, the manner in which other departments interact with park guests is "guest relations", just like hospitality experts would take classes in guest relations in college. In that section of the article we're describing the way that the monorail hosts relate to their guests, but not talking about the Guest Relations department itself, hence, "Guest relations". The first letter is only capitalized because the first letter of all section headers have to be capitalized. Does this help to explain anything? ➪HiDrNick! 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metros

Man come on. if you AT LEAST give me credit for the image then I'd have NO PROBLEM with it being in any formate you want it. Understand where I am coming from? HeadMouse 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note on the SVG image description page here: Image:Lime delta.svg. Is this the sort of credit you were looking for? ➪HiDrNick! 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. now please don't take the following the wrong way. 1) How can I do the SVG? that way I could upload the image and it be in my contributions list, and for future I can do it. 2) Can this block be lifted if I leave the image or upload a SVG version? HeadMouse 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Making SVG images is a bit of a pain, as I understand it. I'm not really a graphics person myself. I know that most people around here use a program called Inkscape, which is free software, so you're welcome to try it out. It's over my head for sure. I know that the missing contribution is a bit of a pain, but I'd try not to worry about it. An important part of Wikipedia is watching other people change things that you worked hard on. Sometimes you don't like the new version, but usually it improves. Very few things on Wikipedia were written or made by a sole author, everyone works together. We have a policy about ownership of articles since lots of people have the same concerns about other people changing their work that you do; the policy in a nutshell is that you just have to let go.

As for your block, I am not an administrator, so I couldn't lift your block if I wanted to. An neutral administrator will be along to review the unblock request that you made shortly. Metros blocked you because you were edit-waring over a disputed change instead of discussing the change on the article talk page. If you would like to be unblocked early, your best bet is to show that you understand the reason that you were blocked and to convince Metros (or another administrator) that it won't happen again. That may be hard since you've been blocked for edit-waring before. Still, you can change your unblock request to be more cordial before it's reviewed if you like.

Best of luck, ➪HiDrNick! 03:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I hope you understood our copyright policies :). Please keep in mind that the PD, GPL and CC-byA license permit anyone to reuse the content in the way they want, including modifying. When you release your contributions into the Public Domain, the person modifying your work also has no obligation to credit you. You need to use the GPL or the creative commons license if you wish to be credited. I know this is frustrating, but Metros had every right to act like he did. Licenses are not revocable, but you can seek the deletion of Image:Lime delta.jpg at WP:IFD since the image is no longer used in any article. Request handled by: -- lucasbfr talk 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamla

I in no way claimed to own this article. so your reference to WP:OWN makes no sense here. And you can not sit here and tell me that just because a user uploads an image then that means that ANYONE can come on here and edit that image and take credit for it. If that's the case, whats the point of copyright rules?HeadMouse 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what Yamla and I wrote earlier this afternoon in #Delta image above about public domain images ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes did you read what I wrote? Your misunderstanding or twisting the meanings of the terms. "USE" means to use something, NOT TO CHANGE IT HeadMouse 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, I am sorry, but your understanding of "public domain images" is not consistent with the image release you agreed to when you uploaded the images and donated them to the public domain. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kralizec is correct. By releasing the image to the public domain, you allow anyone to do anything to it. Including modifying it, etc. You have given up your ownership of the image and have specifically released all your copyrights. Now, we do not insist that anything you upload is released to the public domain but we do require that you permit everyone the ability to modify, change, etc. all of your contributions. If you are not willing to allow this, do not upload anything. And you have most certainly claimed ownership of your contributions here. Right on this page, you are claiming "IT'S MY IMAGE" about the delta image. Even though you explicitly released all ownership to the image (though even if you had not, Wikipedia requires that you permit other users to modify your contributions). --Yamla 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RE READ WHAT I SAID... "I in no way claimed to own this article. And your darn right I claim to own the image I created it. What's the point of copyright if it's just going to be ignored? Even the copyright summery says it's my image, "I, the copyright holder of this work," meaning it is MY WORK. In fact when you upload an image you have to click on "It is entirely my own work". But you know what I could care less. I'll take this two weeks and when I come back I fix the article again and the deal that Dr. Nick and I discussed will be in place. If you don't like it, then go find someone else to harass. Yamla, you really had no business in this. This was already being handled between me and another Admin. Just a little food for thought. HeadMouse 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You released your copyright when you released the image to the public domain. And please reread what I said. All your contributions, including your freely-licensed images, are licensed in a manner that permits other people to modify them. This includes changing the wording of articles. It includes converting a JPG to an SVG file. End of story. If you did not want random administrators to review your block, you should not have used the unblock template. --Yamla 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I released USE of the image. END OF STORY. But I tell you what, I am not un releasing use. I want the image removed and someone else can create one if they wish. Funny how your the only Admin that has a problem. if you read above you will find another Admin has given pointers and offered a retry. So again. find someone else to harass. HeadMouse 23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted in my message above, when you uploaded the image and donated it into the public domain, you also agreed that the "release is not revocable." --Kralizec! (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see about that. HeadMouse 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, DnetSvg has created one: Image:Lime delta.svg. You have now been explicitly credited with the design on the description page, but you need to be aware that this design is well below the threshold for creativity required for copyright protection. As such, the svg version is correctly tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Even if the design were more intricate and was eligible for copyright, you waived all of your rights when you agreed to release the image to the public domain. As others have pointed out, this release is irrevocable and allows others to use, copy, modify the work in any manner they like. Please let the matter of this svg image drop. That the svg version is not logged with your uploads is simply not a big deal.

Also, in the future, be aware that any image or text that you contribute to the project may be modified by other people, whether you release it to the public domain or under one of the licenses compatible with Wikipedia (such as the GFDL). Collaboration is central to Wikipedia, and we do not accept materials that can not be freely modified and reused. If you are not willing to let other people edit your works, then you should not contribute them to the project. ×Meegs 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1) I already knew the tag placed on the new image. Read the comments above and you will see that. I had no problem with that. in fact I even asked how I could make the image SVG and upload it. 2) "If you are not willing to let other people edit your works, then you should not contribute them to the project." that is about as retarded as saying to someone, "Hey we would like to write a book about how to make a cake and get your input on it, but we're not going to give you any credit and we're going to change some of the information and make it our own." Seriously read what you said and tell me how you would feel... "If you are not willing to let other people edit your works,...". Sound a little like you'd be getting the shaft? I think so too. HeadMouse 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1) You seemed content once your name was added to the svg's description page, but then later said "I want the image removed and someone else can create one if they wish". If you would like us to delete Image:Lime delta.jpg, we can do that because it is not in use, and becasue is has no advantages over the svg version. We will not delete Image:Lime delta.svg so long as it is used in the article, though. 2) It seems that you are not comfortable contributing to a free content project like Wikipedia. The fact is, the project only functions because we require all contributions to be licensed in a manner that allows modification and reuse. You have received attribution for every bit of text that you have contributed to project, in the form of the page history, and your name is mentioned on the image discription page of Image:Lime delta.jpg. I'm afraid that's all the credit you'll get. It may seem somewhat unfair, but step back and try to appreciate that great things happen when lots of people are willing to check their egos and donate their time and labor to projects like this one. ×Meegs 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes I was fine with the tag placed on the SVG image. but then when Kralizec! and Yamla kept harassing me about it I just said forget it remove it. 2) Funny how you call this a FREE CONTENT project, but if you look back you will notice that when I tried to share free content I was blocked and my material removed several times Why you asked, because although the material was free content, it was still copyrighted. I was blocked for posting it or changing it. Sounds kinda double standard. Oh it's ok for WP to change another person's material, but it's not ok for someone to post "free media"/ Free Content material that is designed for sharing. This has NOTHING to do with ego, so maybe you should check yours. Everyone that contributes to this project wants credit. If they didn't, we would all sign our stuff with "Anonymous". HeadMouse 13:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Free content" here does not refer to price but rather to the license the content is available under. The content you were sharing was not freely licensed under a license compatible with the GFDL. You will also want to read up on public domain before editing any further. --Yamla 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT THE HECK????

Why am I blocked again? HeadMouse 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Guest Relations is the term used for WDW that is why it is used in this article. HeadMouse 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated before by multiple editors, the section cannot be called "Rider Tips" as that would violate Wikipedia's official policy on WP:NOT#GUIDE. Likewise, it cannot be titled "Guest Relations" because the WP:MOSHEAD guideline states that only the first lettre of a heading is capitalized. Additionally your claim [13] of "read the archives" is disingenuous at best as you are the lone dissenter to consensus. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I received a message from one of the people a while back when this articel was being changed over and all the crap was going on the read alone the lines of "...I see you were not trying to change everything...I even agree with the Guest Relations title...." Again. you are more worried about WP guidelines you are over looking the material of the article. I really doubt that the entire WP project is going to crash just because a title is properly capitalized. Do you have a first and last name. do you only capitalize the first name? Guest Relations is the name used by Disney,and since this section of the article is talking about the guest relations of the monorail it is in fact about the Guest Relation department. HeadMouse 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not blocked. (?) Where did you get that impression? Anyway, I think that everyone here would be a lot happier about working with you if you were willing to concede to community consensus on at least this point. Please drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass. No more editing warring over one capital letter, please. ➪HiDrNick! 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From the following message I get when I click edit You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Metros for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "HeadMouse". The reason given for HeadMouse's block is: "disruption and incivility".

This block has been set to expire: 22:22, 5 October 2007.

If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address.

If it can't be caps then it needs to be re titled. Rider Tips is more appropriate but no, this is not a travel agency, so the next best thing is Guest Relations. Since that is not working maybe it should be "Helpful tips"

HeadMouse 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocked

It seems you have been autoblocked as a result of your previous block. Please follow the instructions below to have your block lifted. Or, if an admin sees this first, (unautoblock).

[edit] Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. If you are still autoblocked by the time you read this message, please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing.

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 205.144.218.172 lifted. Request handled by: -- lucasbfr talk 21:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)