User talk:Reneec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!


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

Request reason: "attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute by other users, including false comments by user Scribner"

Decline reason: "per reason of your block, a legal threat --Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

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



Hello, Reneec, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 03:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

User: Jersyko

User Jersyko is riddled with a compulsive editing disorder, in addition to a pompous dereliction to discredit Mr.Saks. This user (Jersyko) is not aware of the work of Mr.Saks, nor his accomplishments as a musician. As I am new to Wikipedia, I hope that the actions and pedantic whistleblowing of this user are not indicative of the protocols afforded courteous participation insuring the rest of the community unabashed by his (Jersyko) participation.

David Saks page

Please do not remove the 'disputed' tag from the article again until the issue has been resolved. All of the claims on the page need to be cited and verified, or they can not remain, and until they have been verified, the tag must stay there so that readers are aware that the page they are reading may not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why you removed the tag again without explanation either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page? These issues need to be addressed. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, I will be more than happy to leave you alone and drop this whole mess if you simply provide some evidence (besides his personal website) of the claims you've made regarding Mr. Saks and the appropriateness of mentioning him in the Memphis article and having an article devoted exclusively to him in an encyclopedia. You say that I have no business in this regard because I'm "not aware of Mr. Saks or his accomplishments." Ok, so make me aware. - Jersyko talk 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reneec, I, as an impartial observer, must suggest strongly that you visit WP:CITE and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. As an encyclopedia, it is Wikipedia's job to make the reader, as an example, "aware of Mr. Saks or his accomplishments"; however, as with any other enclyclopedia, it is incumbent on its writers/editors to research and include source material with which its readers can do their own research. To force a reader/editor to do his/her own research to verify the claims of an encyclopedia is non sequitur, and would quicky reduce the material to laughing stock. You have suggested that you have permission from Mr. Saks to include this material; if so, this is original research and cannot be allowed to stand unless you also provide the means by which another editor can contact Mr. Saks for verification. This is official Wikipedia policy and cannot be ignored or dismissed. You seem to wish to be a productive editor; are you willing to conform to the guidelines imposed on all of us? RadioKirk talk to me 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Anyone may contact Mr.Saks. His email is provided on his pages and he returns his mail.(Reneec 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
Thank you, but this does not address the issues. Are you willing to abide, as must we all, to Wikipedia policy, and cite your specific sources for purposes of verification? If it is your assertion that you don't have to, then please explain the basis for that assertion. RadioKirk talk to me 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

David Saks repost

The David Saks article was deleted via consesus in articles for deletion. Reposted substantially identical content that has been previously deleted, as you have done with the David Saks article, can be speedy deleted under criterion 4. As I suggested before, perhaps Mr. Saks could register a username, User:David Saks is even available. He could post the content of the article on his user page if he liked. Just a thought. - Jersyko·talk 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Inmemphis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Inmemphis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warnings 1 and 2

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Scribner 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Scribner 07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lastbridge.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Block for real-life threat

I have indefinitely blocked you for this threat. We take threats of actions against users in real life very seriously here. If you want to discuss the issue calmly, and promise never to make such a threat again, I might reconsider. You can still edit this talk page. -- SCZenz 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to interfere with someone's career, while not quite as dire as threatening bodily harm, is highly disruptive to Wikipedia and entirely unacceptable. The fact that you cannot respond with civil discussion on this incident, after I offered to possibly reconsider, leads me to believe that leaving you blocked is appropriate. If you want to flame people, please find another website. -- SCZenz 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, there have been outrageous attacks in the discussion to verify the Official Songs of Memphis. Scribner called me liar and accuses me of being Mr. Saks. I didn't threaten Jersyko's career. I want to validate the fact that he's an attorney in the same manner that he wants to validate Mr. Saks' credibility. Jersyko likes to "dish it out" but he can't take it. It was simply a demonstration of the conceptual separation, by contrast, of the absurd nature of his challenge. Jersyko takes offense in the same manner as this musician and his supporters would by claiming that he was never bestowed the honor, in addition to the absurd and humiliating charge by Scribner that Mr.Saks approached the city council. This is a typical misapprehension of the fact and demonstrates intentional and negligent misrepresentation in an attempt to ridicule the matter. I know that I might appear a rogue, but intend no malevolence or ill will toward you. I know that anger management is in order and I hope you'll remove the ban. Please remove my comment on your talk page. I meant you no disrespect. Anger does that to me. I'm working on it. Please accept my apology. Reneec 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am considering unblocking you, but I would like to discuss a few things first.
If I unblock you, you need to understand that insults and counter-insults are not an appropriate way to deal with problems. I have not looked at the overall conflict at all—only at the immediate issue above and your responses to me—so I don't know what the other users have done. However, I will expect you to start over with the users you're in conflict with and have a civil discussion—and, if you feel they are attacking you, to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard instead of responding in kind. Does that sound fair?
Also, some of the issues above are surprising to me, as they sound like arguments on points of fact. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so any arguments about facts can hopefully be resolved by citing a Reliable source; is there a reason why this is all so contentious? -- SCZenz 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I will comply and I thank you for your kind offer to assist me in the management of this dialogue. Please review all of the associative materials relative to Mr. Saks as your time permits. Another user has attempted to create an Official Songs of Memphis page, of which I support, and it is being attacked and pressed for deletion by the same editors that oppose Mr. Saks' inclusion in the article on Memphis, Tennessee. I implore you to review the recently added Official Songs of Memphis page. It appears that their reasoning is prejudicial in view of the substantial evidence supporting Mr. Saks. Again, my sincerest apology to you. I consider the interaction a privilege. Please review all of the correspondent material regarding Mr. Saks on the talk page, in addition to all of the evidence provided to support his inclusion. Regrettfully, the editors opposing Mr. Saks inclusion appear bellicose and are inclined to dispute or disagree with every verifiable matter supporting him, including resorting to suggesting that the supporter is a liar, as user Scribner had done. Reliable sources are provided in addition to examples of the awards and honors. I believe you have been more than fair, Mr. Zenz, and thank you for demonstrating kindness and interest. I was hasty because of the virulent nature of the editors. I will absolutley refrain from any harsh or corrosive tone, and seek your counsel. I hope that Mr. Saks will also be vindicated by the humiliating nature of the editors opposing him. I'll be able able to move on to another matter, confidently, because of your guidance. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Or perhaps, I should say, Wikipedia is new to me. Thank you helping me resolve this matter responsibly.Reneec 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Recognition.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Afm.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)