Revision as of 02:49, 8 October 2005 editMarudubshinki (talk | contribs)49,641 editsm Reverted edits by Copperchair to last version by Clawson← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:52, 9 November 2023 edit undoZinnober9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers51,267 editsm Fixed Lint errors on this page (obsolete tags, Tidy Font errors) | ||
(309 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Welcome!''' | |||
'''Archives''': | |||
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
{| border="1" | |||
*] | |||
|] | |||
*] | |||
|- | |||
*] | |||
|] | |||
*] | |||
|} | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also ]. | |||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, please be sure to ] and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- ] | ] 09:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
---- | |||
This arbitration case has closed. You are banned indefinitely from editing ] and ]. You are on indefinite ]. These provisions are to be enforced, should you break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above). You may appeal this to the Committee or to ], who has the power of veto over remedies and enforcement. | |||
Hi, and welcome for real this time. I see you're into Star Wars in some way. In that case you might wish to look over the many ] needing expansion. There's plenty there, and plenty more arrive all the time. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page. Welcome once again. I trust you enjoy your stay. --] | ] 09:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
For the arbitration committee. --] 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Afghan deaths == | |||
I already gave you a link to the ISAF page, on August 20, and you deleted it without saying a word. But here it is anyway: | |||
== Archive == | |||
This is from the official ISAF website: | |||
"KABUL, Afghanistan -- An international military soldier was killed yesterday and three others injured when their vehicle slid off the road east of the Afghan Capital's Bagrami District. The accident occurred at 1635 local time as the soldiers' 3-vehicle convoy was returning to their base. No other vehicles were involved." | |||
Copperchair, I shall humbly respect your blanking of your talkpage from here on out, and have decided that reverting you is really no laudible cause for complaint on my part. Its your talkpage, and you're entitled to its process. However, i believe that blanking is a clear oppositon to the comments regarding other editor's concerns, and I think it'd be sensible for you to respect that as well. In conclusion, I've simply made you another archive. I hope you agree with its insertion, and we can come to an agreement. Of course, you are free to revert, and I will accept your decision. I wish you the best. -]<sup>]</sup> 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
That was dated August 7, 2005. Later, on August 10, from a Dutch news site: | |||
"BERLIN - A German soldier serving with international forces in Afghanistan was killed in a traffic accident, a Defence Ministry spokesman said Wednesday in Berlin. | |||
Three other soldiers, two Germans and a Hungarian, suffered slight injuries when the vehicle travelling in a convoy overturned on Sunday near Kabul after the driver lost control in a deeply rutted road, the spokesman said. " | |||
== 24 hour block for violation of ArbCom ruling == | |||
The Dutch story corresponds with the ISAF announcement. Here is an American website which takes note of the German death: It says, at the bottom of the page, "A German soldier stationed in Afghanistan was killed in a vehicle accident, the German Defense Ministry said Wednesday. " The news story is from August 11. | |||
For violating your ArbCom ruling, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Details available ]. — ''']''' '']'' 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Here are the other 16 German deaths: March 6, 2002: 2 soldiers killed in accidental explosion. December 21, 2002: 7 soldiers killed in helicopter crash. May 29, 2003: 1 soldier killed in mine blast. June 7, 2003: 4 soldiers killed by car bomb. June 26, 2005: 2 soldiers die in accidental explosion. ] 13:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Do you understand English? == | |||
== Vandalism. == | |||
It's becoming more and more clear to me that it's quite possible that you don't. You edit-war and are chastised for it, but you insist you're in the right and continue. A number of editors bring you up on an RfC, which is overwhelmingly against your behaviour, but you insist you're in the right and continue. Your case then becomes an RfAr, in which the ArbCom votes 8-0 that ''you are banned indefinitely from editing anything related to Star Wars'', but apparently, you believe you're in the right and continue. You are then blocked for violating this ban, and what do you do when the block expires? You '''immediately''' restore your previous edit, exactly as before. | |||
Cease your vandalism of the Star Wars articles. Continued disruptiion of the articles may get you blocked from Misplaced Pages. Thank you. - ] ] | |||
All this, to say nothing of your continued "sanitation" of your Talk page. It is becoming readily apparent that your efforts on the Internet would be better focused elsewhere. Please give some serious thought to leaving Misplaced Pages, before you are forced out without a choice as a result of your continued disruption.--''']]''' 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Maru and I have blocked you again. I won't ask you to leave, but I will ask you to think about what you're doing here and whether it's really for the good of the project—or, in fact, whether it'll accomplish *anything*. —''']''' '']'' 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I am not "messing" with your Talk page, as you put it. We've had this discussion before, and we'll continue to have it until you learn to abide by Misplaced Pages community standards. It is not considered acceptable to blank your Talk page in order to hide legitimate criticism. Furthermore, until you cease your disruption of the Star Wars articles ], you will continue to be warned here on your Talk page that you are in violation of this policy.--''']]''' 13:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Also note that I am not accusing you of vandalism. I merely used Link's comment as a frame of reference to point out that you '''are''' ], which is contrary to policy. If you will simply stop doing this, neither I nor anyone else will have reason to leave messages here. ¿Comprende Ud.? | |||
=== Year blocking === | |||
:When you start blanking your Talk page to remove this warning, you ''will'' be committing vandalism, and you will be warned against that at the appropriate time.--''']]''' 13:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
By the power vested in me as an administrator and by your probation, and because of your continued (6!) violations of the Arbcom ruling that on your fifth edit (this recent one was your sixth: ) to a ''Star Wars'' article, you would be blocked for a year. Well, we forebore, and only blocked for a week on #5, but you had to go and edit again. Don't bother continuing blanking this talk page; we'll simply semiprotect and indef block any sock puppets. --] ] ] 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Apparently that time is now. Please do not blank your user Talk page, or anyone else's. Blanking Talk pages is considered unacceptable. Please create an archive instead; this is an acceptable alternative if you feel your Talk page has become too cluttered. | |||
Also, I'll remind you again that edit summaries are intended to be a '''truthful''', concise summary of the changes you've made to the page. "Sp." is not an appropriate edit summary when making changes other than spelling. You have a history of doing this, and you've been politely advised to change your behaviour before. Please heed the advice this time.--''']]''' 02:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
=== Block === | |||
Your edits to the various Star Wars film articles are contrary to ]. Clearly, this does not matter to you. That's OK. I don't mind restoring your blanking ''ad infinitum''. The more rope, the easier to hang yourself with, etc.--''']]''' 03:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
You have been blocked for 366 days for violating the agreements that were recently made relating to Star Wars pages. --] 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Re: quote on ] == | |||
The period in the quote "So uncivilized" should lie within the quotation marks, because it is, in fact part of the quote. Periods only lie outside the quotation mark when they are not part of the original quote. | |||
== Just protect this already == | |||
I don't really understand why you keep changing this. Not only has it been pointed out to you numerous times that your version is incorrect, but—and I don't mean to be rude—it's a really, really stupid edit war to continue to get into, seeing as how you are wrong. – ] 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
I am sure the restore I'm doing right now makes well over 100 restorations, by various individuals, of Copperchair's contemptuous and contemptible blanking of this page. It's obvious Copperchair has no intention of listening to anyone on any subject whatsoever, or contributing to this project in any way that can remotely be construed as constructive or collaborative. People have been banned for six months or longer for less, with a lot more substantive good edits to their credit. '''Just hard-ban Copperchair and lock this page already.''' There hasn't been any point in doing anything else with this individual for a long, long time. ] 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Furthermore, the ] says that we should place a period inside the quotation marks when "the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation", regardless of whether or not the period is part of the quotation. In this case, the period is both part of the quotation '''and''' provides a sense of finality, so that's two strikes against your continued reversions. Please stop.--''']]''' 04:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Amen. ] 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
"Messing up" another users talk page is unacceptable. | |||
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. --] ] 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I see little reason to hurry. He has one ban left, and then he's banned for a year, which with autoblocks and such usually ends the issue. --] ] ] 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
That' what I say, but you keep doing that to mine. ] 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Actually I'd like an explanation for why this page was being reverted and why it is protected. Users have the right to edit their talk pages and blank them if they like. They can't remove vandalism warnings, etc, but everything else is fair game. I'm unprotecting unless some really good policy points are brought up that I'm missing. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I am not "messing up" your talk page, and I'm certainly not blanking it. Kindly desist from your vandalism of my talk page, and remember to ] and not make ]. Also, it would be helpful if you would abide by the consensus reached on the Star Wars Talk pages, as your compliance with this consensus will cause the endless warnings from multiple editors to cease. Until you learn to abide by community consensus, the warnings will continue. If you don't like the warnings, cease the behaviour that is causing them. It's pretty simple.--''']]''' 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Archiving is one thing. Reverting it back to the stone age to give the appearance of a clueless newbie is another, but what the hell let's see what happens. — <small>Mar. 7, '06</small> <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; class=plainlinks>''' <]]]]]'''</span> | |||
== Blocked == | |||
:::The above is ''precisely'' why this keeps being reverted. Copperchair is blanking his talk page to sanitise it and make it appear he is completely innocent. The ArbCom warning needs to stay there, along with associated warnings for behaviour, as long as the behaviour remains unresolved. There is ample precedent for this, and I've been saying this for something going on eight months now.--''']]''' 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
You have been blocked for 3 hours for blanking another user's talk page. I understand your anger over Clawson messing with your talk page, but blanking his is not the way to react. Please be more civil when your block expires. <font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <font color="blue">]</font> 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Hi, the rest of it doesn't matter, including this conversation, but you can't blank or remove the arbcom warning, per the blocking policy. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Palpatine == | |||
Copperchair, you keep reverting the fact that the pic of him at the bottom of the page is the original version of him. Please don't revert this, that is a fact that needs to be noted in order to distinguish between the various versions of the films. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. It's not like I'm asking you to put Ian McDiarmid's picture in its place, I'm asking you only to keep a few words in. ] 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
=== User page protections === | |||
Because I mentioned that he was played by Hayden Christensen there. ] 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
To my way of thinking, when one is blocked from editing Misplaced Pages, one is ''blocked'' from all the pages, including this one, even if the blocking method allows editing of one's talk page. I can't imagine that there are any more legitimate issues to discuss with Copperchair, so perhaps we should protect this page? --] ] ] 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Copperchair, in the case of Palpatine, his appearance has been the subject of debate by many on wikipedia, and his first appearance this way has been specifically stated in the article. With Anakin, there is no real reason to keep the original images in, other than for nastalgia or preference of the original or 1997 Special Edition versions. ] 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I certainly have no qualms about protecting his page for a period of time equal to his ban. If he has the need to communicate with administrators, he can e-mail them.--''']]''' 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Working title italics == | |||
::Put it this way - is there any realistic hope of him doing anything constructive with his access to this page? Even when he was bothering to communicate at all, the best you got out of him were promises he didn't end up keeping. I have yet to see the slightest sign of good-faith communication of any kind on Copperchair's part. (Sometimes he'll give his reasons for things, but that's certainly not to be mistaken for a sign that those reasons are, in his mind, open to discussion.) ] 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why exactly does the working title of ''Revenge of the Sith'' not warrant being in italics? Titles are supposed to be italicized. – ] 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Alright then. I'll wait for one more editor to weigh in, and if they agree (which would make four of us), I'll protect. --] ] ] 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I wasn't aware that working titles were listed on those pages, but if you see that they are, you can feel free to italicize them. Titles, however, should be in italics. – ] 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes. Protect. ]'s talkpage has been protected, why not this..? -]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I read your response on Mipadi's Talk page. "Nobody has bothered to fix the other articles" is not an excuse for deliberately contravening the ]. Instead of reverting to the wrong version, why not fix all the others to make them consistent and meet house style guidelines?--''']]''' 03:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::Alright then. I'm gonna protect it now. --] ] ] 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
==RfC== | |||
== Blocked again == | |||
Thanks to your ceaseless refusal to follow community consensus, you are now the subject of a Request for Comment. You may view your RfC .--''']]''' 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I don't really have any connection with this issue, but it's fairly obvious you're just purposely violating your arbcom ban. Please just stick to articles you're not banned from and we'll all be happier. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Image Tagging for ]== | |||
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. | |||
For more information on using images, see the following pages: | |||
== Palpatine == | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Copperchair, you keep reverting the fact that the pic of him at the bottom of the page is the original version of him. Please don't revert this, that is a fact that needs to be noted in order to distinguish between the various versions of the films. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. It's not like I'm asking you to put Ian McDiarmid's picture in its place, I'm asking you only to keep a few words in. ] 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Because I mentioned that he was played by Hayden Christensen there. ] 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
==Image Tagging ]== | |||
:Copperchair, in the case of Palpatine, his appearance has been the subject of debate by many on wikipedia, and his first appearance this way has been specifically stated in the article. With Anakin, there is no real reason to keep the original images in, other than for nastalgia or preference of the original or 1997 Special Edition versions. ] 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
{| align="CENTER" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border:8px solid #FF0000; padding:5px;" | |||
== I've protected ] == | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
| {{center|{{big|This media may be '''deleted'''.}}}} | |||
|} | |||
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. | |||
I've protected the ESB article until some sort of consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson is established. This is an ] edit war, and I'm sure some sort of decision agreeable to all can be made. (Discussion is ongoing ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{tl|GFDL-self}} to release it under the ]. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read ], and then use a tag such as {{tlp|Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ]. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. | |||
As part of this dispute, you've broken the ] rule quite a few times. Please stop making reverts and enter into talk page discussions instead. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. Thank you. ] 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
...and you reverted ] a sixth time. Please take advantage of this day off of editing articles to cool down and consider engaging people in conversation on talk pages, instead of reverting with increasingly-acrimonious edit comments. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Blofeld.JPG== | |||
There was a decision made on the Episode III talk page about leaving only the main characters and supporting cast, as stated in the end credits. I am just following it. ] 07:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:The proper thing to do in such a situation is bring the problem to the attention of other Wikipedians, not revert a half-dozen times. It's clear to me from looking at the RotS talk page that there is no such consensus, and opinions seem to differ about the importance of Denis Lawson's role in ESB (as well as the role of other actors in the other movies). | |||
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ]. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ]. | |||
:All that said, if you don't stop edit warring, this is gonna keep happening, as much as I hate to say it. I'm warning everyone who's violated the 3RR, but you kept reverting after I warned you. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. | |||
How can I disscuss it if I am blocked? ] 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:When the block is up. However, if you're willing to give me your parole that you won't revert any articles, I'd be happy to lift the block; I don't want to block anyone. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I'm going to have to retract that offer by necessity; I'm going to bed. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 11:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
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 "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale --> ] (]) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Star Wars reverts== | |||
I'm just going to have to let the admins handle you. I see you won't give up, and I'm not getting into this crap again. ] 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== RfC == | |||
== Speedy deletion of ] == | |||
Clawson has filed an RfC against you at ]. He posted a notice on your talk page before but it was along with an unrelated reversion so you may have missed it—in either case you've yet to respond to it so I thought I might make sure you knew. — ''']''' '']'' 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted. | |||
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<code><noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude></code>). | |||
I'd love to respond, but I am currently blocked. ] 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Thanks. <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">]</span>, and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">]</span> 11:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Allow me to fix that. I didn't realize you hadn't replied on the RFC yet. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== List of battles before AD 601 listed at ] == | |||
:You're unblocked. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''List of battles before AD 601'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
== 3RR violation == | |||
I am blocking you for 48 hours for your multiple ] violations and ignoring consensus. I have also blocked the Wookieepedian. Also, youve been unblocked for a while and you never commented at your RfC, so I won't let you hide behind that anymore. ]]] (]) 03:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:He did reply at his RFC, for what it's worth. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Guwah? == | |||
What, the cast listing or your being blocked? Anyway, I would definitely say there is already a consensus. Please drop it. - ] ] 06:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 05:52, 9 November 2023
Archives:
User:Copperchair/Archive1 |
User:Copperchair/Archive2 |
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair
This arbitration case has closed. You are banned indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. You are on indefinite Misplaced Pages:Probation. These provisions are to be enforced, should you break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above). You may appeal this to the Committee or to User:Jimbo Wales, who has the power of veto over remedies and enforcement.
For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Copperchair, I shall humbly respect your blanking of your talkpage from here on out, and have decided that reverting you is really no laudible cause for complaint on my part. Its your talkpage, and you're entitled to its process. However, i believe that blanking is a clear oppositon to the comments regarding other editor's concerns, and I think it'd be sensible for you to respect that as well. In conclusion, I've simply made you another archive. I hope you agree with its insertion, and we can come to an agreement. Of course, you are free to revert, and I will accept your decision. I wish you the best. -Zero 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
24 hour block for violation of ArbCom ruling
For violating your ArbCom ruling, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Details available here. — Phil Welch 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand English?
It's becoming more and more clear to me that it's quite possible that you don't. You edit-war and are chastised for it, but you insist you're in the right and continue. A number of editors bring you up on an RfC, which is overwhelmingly against your behaviour, but you insist you're in the right and continue. Your case then becomes an RfAr, in which the ArbCom votes 8-0 that you are banned indefinitely from editing anything related to Star Wars, but apparently, you believe you're in the right and continue. You are then blocked for violating this ban, and what do you do when the block expires? You immediately restore your previous edit, exactly as before.
All this, to say nothing of your continued "sanitation" of your Talk page. It is becoming readily apparent that your efforts on the Internet would be better focused elsewhere. Please give some serious thought to leaving Misplaced Pages, before you are forced out without a choice as a result of your continued disruption.--chris.lawson 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maru and I have blocked you again. I won't ask you to leave, but I will ask you to think about what you're doing here and whether it's really for the good of the project—or, in fact, whether it'll accomplish *anything*. —Phil Welch 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Year blocking
By the power vested in me as an administrator and by your probation, and because of your continued (6!) violations of the Arbcom ruling that on your fifth edit (this recent one was your sixth: ) to a Star Wars article, you would be blocked for a year. Well, we forebore, and only blocked for a week on #5, but you had to go and edit again. Don't bother continuing blanking this talk page; we'll simply semiprotect and indef block any sock puppets. --maru (talk) contribs 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Block
You have been blocked for 366 days for violating the agreements that were recently made relating to Star Wars pages. --Deckiller 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just protect this already
I am sure the restore I'm doing right now makes well over 100 restorations, by various individuals, of Copperchair's contemptuous and contemptible blanking of this page. It's obvious Copperchair has no intention of listening to anyone on any subject whatsoever, or contributing to this project in any way that can remotely be construed as constructive or collaborative. People have been banned for six months or longer for less, with a lot more substantive good edits to their credit. Just hard-ban Copperchair and lock this page already. There hasn't been any point in doing anything else with this individual for a long, long time. PurplePlatypus 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see little reason to hurry. He has one ban left, and then he's banned for a year, which with autoblocks and such usually ends the issue. --maru (talk) contribs 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I'd like an explanation for why this page was being reverted and why it is protected. Users have the right to edit their talk pages and blank them if they like. They can't remove vandalism warnings, etc, but everything else is fair game. I'm unprotecting unless some really good policy points are brought up that I'm missing. - Taxman 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above is precisely why this keeps being reverted. Copperchair is blanking his talk page to sanitise it and make it appear he is completely innocent. The ArbCom warning needs to stay there, along with associated warnings for behaviour, as long as the behaviour remains unresolved. There is ample precedent for this, and I've been saying this for something going on eight months now.--chris.lawson 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the rest of it doesn't matter, including this conversation, but you can't blank or remove the arbcom warning, per the blocking policy. - Taxman 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
User page protections
To my way of thinking, when one is blocked from editing Misplaced Pages, one is blocked from all the pages, including this one, even if the blocking method allows editing of one's talk page. I can't imagine that there are any more legitimate issues to discuss with Copperchair, so perhaps we should protect this page? --maru (talk) contribs 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly have no qualms about protecting his page for a period of time equal to his ban. If he has the need to communicate with administrators, he can e-mail them.--chris.lawson 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Put it this way - is there any realistic hope of him doing anything constructive with his access to this page? Even when he was bothering to communicate at all, the best you got out of him were promises he didn't end up keeping. I have yet to see the slightest sign of good-faith communication of any kind on Copperchair's part. (Sometimes he'll give his reasons for things, but that's certainly not to be mistaken for a sign that those reasons are, in his mind, open to discussion.) PurplePlatypus 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alright then. I'll wait for one more editor to weigh in, and if they agree (which would make four of us), I'll protect. --maru (talk) contribs 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Protect. User:Dschor's talkpage has been protected, why not this..? -Zero 11:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alright then. I'm gonna protect it now. --maru (talk) contribs 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked again
Hi, I don't really have any connection with this issue, but it's fairly obvious you're just purposely violating your arbcom ban. Please just stick to articles you're not banned from and we'll all be happier. - Taxman 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Greedoshootsfirst.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greedoshootsfirst.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Anakinunmasked.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Anakinunmasked.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Blofeld.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Blofeld.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Addhoc (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Countries of Central America
A tag has been placed on Template:Countries of Central America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>
).
Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
List of battles before AD 601 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of battles before AD 601. Since you had some involvement with the List of battles before AD 601 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)