User talk:Djedamrazuk

License tagging for Image:Acizmic 32.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Acizmic 32.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down please[edit]

If you're trying to get retribution over listing Theaxa, I've already owned up to blowing that call and apologized to the author. The other page has definite problems that have to be addressed if the page is to be kept. --DarkAudit 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris whats-his-face[edit]

Removing comments is one thing, but what I'm doing is acting to prevent you and your "friends" from interfering with a valid Wikipedia process. (That's given that I believe that all those accounts are not you, which I don't.) If you continue interfering, I'll ask for a CheckUser to be run on all the accounts that are vandalizing the AfD page. Danny Lilithborne 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised entry[edit]

I have updated my comments regarding the nomination for deletion of the Haris Cizmic page. I have also sent a message to the admin noting your good-faith efforts to fix the page. --DarkAudit 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AXA_9.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AXA_9.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haris Čizmić may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for online media (2010 Ford Mustang YouTube takeover, Warrior sports, Bosch...) music videos (Maxine Petrucci<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIfhXkHXW80</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingray band.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ingray band.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PamD 20:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is absolutely unacceptable. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:00, 2 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

My page is deleted for no reason, then undeleted, then deleted again. It'e been here for 12 years and why is it bothering someone now to take it down?? Then I get frustrated and you block me? My page is listed on my resumes, websites and CV's and now your'e just taking it down when you feel like it, even thought there is NO REASON for it and it's not violating any rules

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is your vulgar personal attack on another user, which is never acceptable for any reason. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (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.

The article that you are discussing was deleted per a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Čizmić. You had an opportunity to participate in the discussion, and have proper channels available to challenge the result, but instead chose to make an extremely vulgar comment. That's what you were blocked for, and will need to address should you choose to make another request. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

You people can just go ahead and delete whatever you like just like that, and I don't have a saying, I can't get frustrated? OK if you like to act like Gods in a virtual world, whatever. You have all the power declining and deleting someone's real life work and achievements from your living room. I just needed wikipedia page so Google would show photo when someone is searching for me anyway.

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. Yamla (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2018 (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 speak as if someone deleted your life accomplishments and work from your life, and not just Wikipedia. The existence of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on your life's work. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing your (or anyone's) search results, and should not be used for promotional purposes or even for people to write about themselves(which, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged). I realize that the article had existed for some time, but as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate pages to go undetected for years. All of this, however, is not relevant to the reason for your block, which you will need to address if you want it lifted. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I thought that I was, but OK. I may have over reacted, it's very frustrating when you don't have control over things that are happening and you channel the blame on one person. It's up to you to unblock me or not, just like it's up to me to open 20 more profiles from 20 IP's, but that's not what I will do, since I am not doing wikipedia often and I don't troll. I do understand why you blocked me and I don't have any intention of arguing or attacking anyone here anymore. I am hurt that someone took my page down even though everything is correctly referenced and properly linked. Administrator could send me a note if something should be fixed. Maybe I don't get how wikipedia works and in many cases it seems too complicated. All best.

Accept reason:

We're all human, and I can understand being frustrated. Try to remember that other editors are human beings as well, and understand that it likely won't be as easy to get unblocked if there's a next time. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering unblocking based on the above, but I am at work right now. I'm not sure why you mentioned socking. I'll be home in a few hours if any other admins or editors have input here. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Sock comment aside, I'm just wondering what do they plan to do on Wikipedia once unblocked? What articles would they edit? So far, I've only seen contribs to COI articles, and I'd like to mention once again - the incredibly bizarre AFD from 2006. I know it was 12 years ago, but judging from the first two unblock requests the editors behavior hasn't changed much since then. Djedamrazuk, will you throw a temper tantrum the next time something doesn't go the way you wanted it to? Also, I'd really like to know what were you trying to do in that AFD with all those socks? byteflush _Talk 22:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]