User talk:HeadMouse

Archives

/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]