User talk:InQuahogNeato

Replaceable fair use Image:Montenegrin Mountain Hound.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Montenegrin Mountain Hound.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

No, the picture probably can't be used under a fair use claim; we reserve this for ones which cannot be replaced by a free image for whatever reason. It's pretty clear that this is replaceable. See this. Cheers, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I take a reduced quality screenshot, would that count? InQuahogNeato (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The issue is replaceability. We don't even (for the most part) allow pictures of people who are already living (like celebrities) under fair use, because a replacement could plausibly be made. I think that's especially so for a dog. Hey, I don't make the rules around here... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account[edit]

So then, who's alternate account are you? The knowledge of wikipedia that you display is not that of a normal user, so, who are you?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL WUT

Let's pretend you never attacked me for being too knowledgeable, shall we? TheRedPenOfDoom was repeatedly violating WP:FILMPLOT by demanding unnecessary citations, so I reverted his edits because the previous version of that sentence was simply wrong, plot wise. As for "alternate accounts" – I have no other active accounts at the present moment. I will grant you the chance to rethink your attitude towards me, review my contribs and ask me in case anything there bothers you. Have I blatantly violated a rule? Have I vandalized an article? Have I disrupted a work in progress by making points (such as "who are you to come to my article and start reverting editors, who in your opinion subtract from its overall value?") instead of working towards... say... improving the article? I await your civil reply.

Oh, and for the record – it's "whose." InQuahogNeato (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

Yes it's whose but I've blocked you anyway for personal attacks and block evasion. I'm watching this talk page, so you can speak up for yourself if you like, I'm willing to unblock you if you can sway me into thinking you're here to write encyclopedia articles without trying to hurt other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you must have gotten the wrong person. There is no block evasion here, nor was I trying to hurt anyone. I was attacked by Daedalus969 for "knowing WP rules too well"... and I expressed my honest opinion about his edit history. He assumed bad faith from the get-go, so I replied in a similar manner. Still, if you think I was the aggressive party I will simply ignore any future attack on me. I think if you examine my edit history you can easily see that I'm here to edit articles and not at all interested in this drama. Please reply ASAP. InQuahogNeato (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea not to respond in kind when people anger you; it tends to escalate things and get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. In this case, why didn't you just say "I've edited for a while as an IP, and still do, but there's no conflict and I've never been blocked"? That's perfectly allowable, and one of the few good answers to "how come you know so much?" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct. On the other hand, I am human, so when that editor left such an aggressive comment containing quite an offensive assumption, I simply got upset for such a negative attitude. What you are saying is true, I do edit other articles as an anonymous IP but the answer I gave him was precise – "I do not have other active accounts at the present moment". Basically, I have been blocked indefinitely for no just reason, is there a way to get this over with and do the proper adjustments in my block log? Thank you very much in advance. InQuahogNeato (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InQuahogNeato (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No one showed me what I did wrong, so I am assuming this is a mistake. A personal attack was conducted against me, I reacted and got blocked for no apparent reason. Can someone please explain WTF is going on here? InQuahogNeato (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for block evasion, of which user we do not know, but your contributions speak for themselves. As for the personal attacks, I believe this comment (along with a few others) is what Gwen is referring to, and I agree it was out of line. Lastly you have engaged in edit warring on a number of articles including Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. As such, this request is declined. Tiptoety ^talk 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You're behaving like someone who's both made lots of edits to en.Wikipedia and been blocked before, likewise the long, rambling smear/personal attack you posted (which was way over the top). Having said "I have no other active accounts at the present moment," makes me think one or more of those old accounts might be blocked. Moreover, you've posted to articles and editor talk pages which have lately been linked to vandalism and other worries. Other admins are welcome to review this, but if I'm to unblock you, I need to hear more about what you're doing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by association with editing articles, which may have been vandalized by others in the past... amusing to say the least. Again, I am not evading block. I did have an account a while ago, which is not blocked, but I won't reveal it in public as this account was intended to be a clean slate; I can email you about it if you want. It could take me less than a minute to change my IP and create a new account, but then again, I am not here for the drama. If there is anything you need to know, just ask. InQuahogNeato (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, as you people chose to continue the drama and block me out of nowhere, this account already has the stain. I'm officially abandoning it. InQuahogNeato (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. Tiptoety, I was not a part of ED but you successfully drove me there – I opened an account a couple of days ago. I honestly tried to start on a clean slate and somehow contribute to Wikipedia with a healthy portion of common sense. Unfortunately, I fell victim to bureaucratic masturbation, which is fairly common here. You people have given me the ultimate proof that admins, bureaucrats, checkusers etc. don't know the first thing about properly investigating sockpuppets and block evaders (no, I wasn't evading block, nor have I ever engaged in sockpuppetry). You fling arbitrary blocks by association, protect wikibullies, bite newcomers, "guard" articles based on communal POVs (yes, yes, don't even try and deny it), refuse to exercise the tiniest bit of common sense in any situation... the list can go on for much longer, I just don't give a fuck anymore. Rest assured I'll have a new username sometime in the near future, I still want to be a good contributor because I really want to make Wikipedia better, as opposed to what the so-called "seasoned editors" do here. It's like a badly run political party in here. You're the same bunch of trolls as ED... the difference is that at least they admit it while you pretentiously mask yourselves as a "civil community"... my ass. This is why Wikipedia is a joke in the eyes of any serious scholar society. Buh-bye for now. InQuahogNeato (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read nary a hint here that you mean to write encyclopdia articles whilst abiding by the policies of this privately owned website. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]