User talk:Count23

Discussion Archive is here: User_talk:Count23/Archive_Index

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ambar logo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ambar logo.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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hi Count, I've blocked this account for 24 hours for sockpuppetry on Broughton Anglican College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You've been restoring contentious material to the article as several anon IPs. Today you requested semi-protection against a new account that was trying to remove it, then when I semi-protected and removed the material myself, you used this infrequently used account to bypass semi-protection and restore the material. That's not really on. I'll post the block template below so you can use the links to request an unblock. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Really amusing that I'm the one trying to protect a page from vandalism and I get locked... you really, really have to love wikipedia, don't ya? - Count23 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I find this mildly amusing. You blame me for not bothering to log in to protect a page from vandalism. You failed to check the history of edits on the page to discover that an anonymous IP that creates sock puppet accounts to blank the article in question - removing any negative commentary and RELEVANT, VERIFIED material from the article. I cannot be bothered to log in every single frigging time I need to make an edit to protect information from being censored. And again, the "contentious material" that you so happen to claim it is, is verified, reliable and backed up by multiple sources and contains DIRECTLY RELEVANT information to the article. It is my opinion that you are simply blocking me because of the previous legal threats made against wikipedia by the schools "supposed" representative who has admitted he is whitewashing the page to remove "negative comments against the school"}}

This is my first encounter with this situation, and I'm not aware of any legal threats from the school. The point is that you were reverting as anon IPs, you requested semi-protection as an anon, then when I added it and removed contentious material, you logged into a little-used account, by-passed the protection you'd requested yourself, and reverted me. That's classic sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first off, you approved me restoring the content. I take this example from YOUR OWN TALK PAGE:

The information you removed was verified months ago, it is the school's representative that seeks to remove it and suppress any suggested that Frank Bailey was a former headmaster who employed questionable administrative tactics during his tenure. I'll be restoring this information, however, I agree that it does need a re-write in that the references supplied as shoddily stuffed on the end of the paragraph rather then properly noted.

- Count23 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Count. I'm going to copy this to the talk page so we can discuss it there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had not wanted me to restore the information, I would not have in the first place.

Secondly, as an administrator its your job to have all the facts at hand before rendering judgement, not just half-assing your way through it. Blocking me and ignoring the fact that the anon user I regularly revert happens to own approximately 4 sockpuppet accounts that are unverified and have only ever blanked sections of the article in question, just shows that you made a serious mistake and didn't consider the entire situation beforehand. By scrolling back over 2 pages of edits, you can easily see the number of sockpuppet attempts from the school staff doing the same thing... wiping out information, even though it is verified and confirmed.

Yes, I requested semi protection as an anon, so what? If I don't have to log in to do something i'm not going to log in. It's as simple as that, logging in is just another hassel when it comes to doing anything on the internet. And i find your claim that i only use this account for sockpuppetry or the like offensive. I used to use this account regularly as part of the wiki stargate project, I gave up on logging in when it became... you guessed it... a hassel. You'll find anything I did anonymously didnt' violate any wikipedia rules as if i DID log in, no vandalism, no breaking 3RR, no linking copyrighted content, etc...

So to summarize, you've ignored the history of the page, you've blocked the person trying to prevent vandalism, you don't have all the facts and you've approved me doing something, and then punished me for it. That about sum it up? - Count23 (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You will of course have to accept my apology for acting indignant, it's not every day I banhammered by an admin after doing what I was told - Count23 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

When an admin makes an edit to remove problematic material from a protected page, it makes no sense to revert, especially not with a little-used account after having reverted multiple times as an anon. The bottom line is that we're expected to be sensitive when people arrive to blank material that affects organizations and living persons. We're not supposed to simply keep restoring it, in case it's problematic, and in this case the material is highly problematic, because the source material discusses the individual, not that school. As the school is mentioned in passing, it's perhaps acceptable to include it in the article, but it will have to be written carefully. It isn't appropriate to approach this kind of sensitive issue with multiple accounts/IPs and lots of reverting. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked early as a gesture of goodwill. Please consider sticking to one account in future, especially when you're making contentious edits like that. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pella.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pella.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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery