User talk:Silicondale

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Silicondale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ecton Mines, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kolbasz (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ecton Mines[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ecton Mines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.ectonmine.org/ and http://www.vmine.net/ecton2013/courses.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kolbasz (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation. I have now added the necessary 'copyleft' declaration to the EMET website in case there is some duplication of text. Please remove the "speedy deletion" notice from the Ecton Mines page! -- Steve Henley Silicondale (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the deletion now that a conforming copyleft notice is on the site. However, since the article is a direct copy of external text, it will need some formatting, rewriting and formatting to bring it closer to Wikipedia guidelines. I've made a start, but there are a lot of terms that could be linked, and it's not linked from other articles (Ecton, at least?). A broader set of sources would be helpful, given that the text is a direct copy/paste. The inevitable formatting issues and introduction of superlatives and semi-promotional content is one reason why we discourage direct copying of text rather than rewriting. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to help out. You can remove the tags when you think you've taken care of the concerns. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Acroterion. I have added links to this page from a number of other articles, and will take care of the other issues which you raise.Silicondale (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Deep Ecton pipe.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Deep Ecton pipe.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Deep_Ecton_pipe.jpg[edit]

The originator of this photograph, Paul Deakin, is deceased. His photograph was commissioned by the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) for use in a book published by John Barnatt, PDNPA Survey Archaeologist (reference no.2 in the article), and I have an email from John Barnatt which confirms the conditions of permission to use the photo. I trust that this is sufficient evidence. <redacted> Silicondale (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post emails and personal contact information here: that itself is a copyright violation, and it's never a good idea to post anyone's personal contact information on the #7 website in the world. The best way to deal with concerns of this kind is to follow the instructions above to send the appropriate evidence of permissions to Wikipedia's OTRS (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) system by email, which will ensure privacy and allow volunteers who are used to working with such issues to make an assessment and advise. You can place the OTRS-pending tag on the file to ensure that it doesn't get deleted while the conversation is taking place. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - understood! I already sent the email to the permissions address. Many thanks for the help. Silicondale (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be deleted in seven days, as the email received by the OTRS team was not sufficient to confirm permission. — Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that that was sufficient. However, I now have an email with a copy of a letter from the photographer's widow, confirming permission. I trust that this is now sufficient evidence. I have now sent this to the OTRS team. Silicondale (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the photograph that caused concern, which may now be deleted. Silicondale (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from using the word 'terrorist' to describe Syrian rebels[edit]

Per WP:TERRORIST. The Syrian rebels are not terrorists under Wikipedia standards. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the Wikipedia "standards" are wrong. They are terrorists. Even the Pentagon recognises that there are no moderate rebels in Syria (how many? - "just 4 or 5"). Silicondale (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User keeps characterizing the Syrian rebels as "terrorists". GAB^gab 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Righting great wrongs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Miniapolis 23:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

the edits I made were factual and were supported by references Silicondale (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While I appreciate the problem of systemic bias and understand the importance of balance, Wikipedia is not a platform for you to push your very one-sided political viewpoint as if it were fact. As your comment below suggests that you intend to continue with that approach, I have extended your block to indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (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.

So Wikipedia has come down on the side of the US and UK governments and NATO. What a surprise! My contributions on Bana Alabed and the White Helmets were factual, and were supported by references. Characterisation of the armed groups fighting against the legitimate Syrian army as terrorists is absolutely correct - they are jihadi terrorists, or Al Nusra / Al Qaeda, Al Zenki, ISIS, and various other similar groups. It is now recognised even by much of the mainstream media that there are no "moderate rebels" left in Syria. It is clear to anybody who examines the whole story that Bana Alabed is a child who has been used - abused - as a pawn in a very nasty propaganda stunt. The White Helmets are FACTUALLY NOT the Syrian Civil Defence, even if they have appropriated that name and try to pass themselves off as something they are not. Again, anyone who sees their professionally produced videos can see that these are staged - purely propaganda. Worse than that, there is plenty of photographic evidence that individual members of White Helmets are ALSO head-chopping terrorists. And as the Syrian army has discovered following liberation of Aleppo, the schools were appropriate by terrorists as weapons factories and the hospitals were well stocked with medicines but only for treatment of the terrorists and their families, not the city's population.Silicondale (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinite block is unreasonable and totalitarian and only confirms political bias of the Wikipedia administratorSilicondale (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:34, 26 December 2016 (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.

My political viewpoint is indeed different from that of the authors of the two articles concerned, and clearly is different from at least two Wikipedia administrators. However, my viewpoint is supported by credible sources. An indefinite block by Wikipedia can actually be interpreted (as it is in fact) as a decision to support the very one-sided viewpoints represented by the Bana Alabed and White Helmets articles - neither of which corresponds even closely to any objective truth. See recent publications by Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, and Carla Ortiz, all of whom are independent of any political masters, and all of whom have have been in Aleppo recently - and whose testimony is therefore much stronger than that of Bellingcat, which consists of "armchair bloggers", unqualified individuals funded largely by Atlantic Council and other politically biased organisations explicitly to support the US/NATO propaganda. If the block is sustained, then I shall make it very clear and public on social media that Wikipedia is taking this political stance. I am not going to beg for the block to be removed, nor shall I make any undertakings to refrain from edits and comments. It is a matter for Wikipedia's administrators to decide if they wish the platform to be balanced and objective, or if they wish instead to support a western propaganda "post-truth" (=lying) viewpoint.Silicondale (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many times we've had blocked editors threaten to "make it very clear and public on social media that Wikipedia is...(whatever)"? Can you guess how many times that has worked? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that I must not refer to the terrorists in Syria as terrorists - that they are just "rebels". Look at the images on this Twitter thread and tell me this is NOT the work of terrorists: https://twitter.com/AWAKEALERT/status/805725924045955072

These atrocities are carried out by the people supported by White Helmets. There is ample photographic proof that many White Helmets "volunteers" are indeed the same terrorists. In blocking me, Wikipedia administrators are wilfully supporting these US-backed (armed, funded) "moderate" terrorists. Most are foreigners, not even Syrian. So by blocking this truth, the only conclusion is that Wikipedia supports terrorism. Silicondale (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are using this talk page to continue to push your own political views rather than to seek unblock, I have revoked your ability to edit it. Please see WP:UTRS if you wish to make a genuine unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17201 was submitted on Dec 27, 2016 12:59:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]