User talk:Zarembo
Welcome![edit]
|
March 2012[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Avatar Records has been reverted.
Your edit here to Avatar Records was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.myspace.com/avatarrecordsuk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Image tagging for File:BehindTHeWallsSnippet.ogg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:BehindTHeWallsSnippet.ogg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:BehindTheWalls-KuruptNateDogg.ogg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:BehindTheWalls-KuruptNateDogg.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:BehindTHeWallsSnippet.ogg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:BehindTHeWallsSnippet.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Myron & E[edit]
Hi, the problem with this article is that it is a derivative of a copyright violation (and most of the structure is still the same as the article it copies). It is best to have it deleted as a copyvio and then you can start over. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 07:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Zarembo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am respectfully requesting that I be unblocked from Wikipedia because my actions were IN FAVOR and support of wikipedia's policies, NOT in contravention to them. Here is the background, a fan of the band Myron and E who lives in Europe posted the original article which came from the Stones Throw Records website. The band is signed to Stones Throw Records and Stones Throw therefore owns the bio - they let other people use the bio under creative commons policies (they in fact want people to use the bio)therefore it is not copyright infringement. Be that as it may, because of Wikipedia's policies, I sought to substantially change the article so that it WOULDN'T be seen as copyright infringement. I spent HOURS adding new information, changing the wording and adding 14 citations. I SUPPORTED wikipedia's policies by WORKING to substantially change the article. I am a fan of the band in Los Angeles. I don't work for the band... i don't get any money from the band. I just love their music and saw that the article was about to be deleted unless I changed it... so that's what i did. In addition to the substantial changes I made, i also -per wikipedia's policy - added NUMEROUS citation. Further, the reason I was given for being blocked was, i quote, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue". I NEVER posted copyrighted material... i am the person who posted ORIGINAL material that sought to change the article so substantially that it would not violate Wikipedia's policy. Please go through my posts and let me know one word which is not original thought and was taken from somewhere else. I feel you are prosecuting the person who was trying to bring the article "into compliance". Because the material I added to the article was in furtherance of wikipedia's policy, i respectfully request that I be unblocked. Thank you very much.
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Can you point to where it says in Stones Throw website that the material is released under a compatible creative commons license? You were blocked for persisting in keeping the content and removing the db-g6. A duplicator report still shows substantial material directly copied from Stones Throw.--v/r - TP 17:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
{
Zarembo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Daniel Case: thank you very much for your help on this issue. Please show me where in the WIkipedia Policy and Guidelines it says a user or editor who POSTS copyvio material should not be blocked but the person who then edits the article and ONLY posts original material should be blocked. I NEVER posted copyrighted material. I am the guy who added substantial material to make it not so similar to the Stones Throw Bio. Further, please show me where in the Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines where it says an editor should be blocked for removing the db-g6 AFTER i posted substantially different material to the article. I didn't read anywhere on the Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines where an editor cannot delete a db-g6 if he has used good faith in following WP guidelines by entering original material that is not a copyvio. You write in the post above, "You were blocked for persisting in keeping the content". Where in the WP guideline does it say it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to take down ANOTHER USER'S CONTENT??? Again, I simply added to a pre-existing article by aded an introductory paragraph, changing the language and adding facts that were not present in the original article, adding substantial touring information, and adding 14 different citations from third party websites. Not one word that I added was copyvio - but you ban me? Banning me even though I didn't add any copyvio material when I was simply improving the article in good faith is a CLEAR VIOLATION OF WP GUIDELINES. Lastly, I contacted Stones Throw Records and received an email back giving me permission to use parts of their bio for the WP article. You can see a pdf file of the email by click here: http://www.iwalkdoggie.com/iWalkDoggie.com/Blank_files/Myron%20and%20E%20Wikipedia.pdf In the following article it clearly states that owners of copyrighted material can give permission to have that material used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CP#Supplying_evidence_of_non-infringement I summation, i once again ask that the block on my user account be lifted I did nothing in bad faith but keeping me blocked in violation of WP policy even though i didn't post any copyvio material is clearly bad faith. Thank you very much in advance and I hope you have a good day. "
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Funsjacobs posted a direct copyvio from Stones Throw. It was rightfully nominated for speedy deletion. You removed the CSD tag despite the fact that the copyrighted material still existed and you had not corrected it. The CSD tag was restored, and once again you deleted the CSD tag without removing the copyrighted material. If you believe it's under a creative commons license, for which I've checked and can find no evidence of, can you please show us where on the Stones Throw website that it says that content is available under a compatible license?--v/r - TP 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- That email is actually not sufficient: we can't host anything "allowed for Wikipedia", it has to be licensed under a free license. Max Semenik (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zarembo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TParis: thank you for your response and the continuing dialog. in the unblock procedures page on WP it says i may be able to contact you via email... please let me know if that is possible in order to resolve this. The problem I'm having is that every time i get a response the reason for me being blocked changes. First it was copyvio (even though i only posted original material in order to improve user funsjacobs original post). Then I was accused of deleting a db-g6 tag. Now it seems you are saying i've been blocked for deleting a CSD tag. I apologize for deleting the CSD tag. IF you unblock me i promise not to delete another CSD tag. The reason i deleted the CSD tag is that i sought to IMPROVE the article by changing it substantially thereby making the tag unnecessary - I didn't delete it and then disregard it's requirements. I did not see anywhere in the WP Guidelines and Policies language that forbids an editor for adding substantially different original material to an existing article which might be copyvio and then removing the CSD tag. Would you be so kind as to show me where that is prohibited. As you can see by the log I posted MULTIPLE times as I (1) changed the language so that it would not violate WP copyright rules and (2) I deleted the CSD tags during the time I was posting MULTIPLE citations pursuant to WP policy. In other words, once again, all of my posting yesterday was in "good faith" and was meant to "improve" the original article posted by funsjacobs. I do not think my good faith postings and removal of the CSD tags rises to the level of requiring Blocking. Once again, I promise not to remove a CSD tag in the future and respectfully request to be Unblocked. By the way: my brother was an Air Force Captain... so GO AIR FORCE!!! Lastly: did you see the email from the lawyer/general manager of Stones Throw today allowing me to use material from the bio on their website? Is that sufficient?? It is here: http://www.iwalkdoggie.com/iWalkDoggie.com/Blank_files/Myron%20and%20E%20Wikipedia.pdf THANK YOU!!
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Alright, let's do this. I'll explain to you why what you did was a copyright violation and why your email was insufficient. However, that'll take some dialog and time. So in the meantime, I'll personally unblock you, or another administrator, if you agree not to repost anything from Stones Throw until we've sorted this out. Also, if you see anymore {{db-g6}} tags, you must not remove them. If you agree to that, I'll unblock you and then we can talk about what you did.--v/r - TP 04:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zarembo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TParis: thank you for your help. I agree to everything you are proposing. Specifically i will NEVER post anything from Stones Throw... I never did - another user did. I will tell him not to also! lastly I won't remove any tags. thank you again for your help! I appreciate you Unblocking me!
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Zarembo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TParis... i thought you were going to unblock me pursuant to your comments above... did you forget about me?
Accept reason:
August 2015[edit]
Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Avatar Records. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Avatar Records/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. The Dissident Aggressor 01:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The Dissident Aggressor So please help me understand: when a third party website copies some language from a wikipedia page, the wikipedia page needs to be slapped with a copyright violation notice? Is it acceptable for me now to go through wikipedia articles on, for example, President Bush, Apple Computer, and the Confederate Flag and check to see if other websites are using substantial language from the wikipedia page??? If I find language on any site that uses substantial language from the wikipedia page I can flag the wiki page for copyright violation?
Orphaned non-free image File:The Album Cover of the Last Season Soundtrack of The L Word.jpeg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:The Album Cover of the Last Season Soundtrack of The L Word.jpeg. 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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
3RR warning[edit]
Your recent editing history at List of The L Word soundtracks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The fact that some of your edits were made without logging in does not excuse violations. Note also that my removal of NFCC violations is expressly exempted from 3RR limits The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) I will refrain from editing this page for the time being. I have requested that you be blocked from wikipedia for violating wikipedia rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)has a long history of actions that violated wikipedia rules and being blocked for bad behavior. Because the article now contains Critical Commentary, the images in question - per wikipedia rules - should be allowed on the page.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo): You did NOT engage in BRD as per wikipedia rules as stated as follows: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.
Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome.
Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).
Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring.
Cycle. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion."
I don't understand why you feel free to do anything you want, whereas other editors follow the rules and then are victimized. Everyone should follow the rules... why don't you want to follow the rules??? Zarembo (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.