User talk:Topbookclub
Note: This talk page is often cleared/blanked
to remove the clutter of settled or old discussions of articles.
January 2016[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fam Nice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fam Nice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Topbookclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I respectfully request to be unblocked. After more than 6 yrs of faithfully abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and contributing to thousands of articles of various subjects I was blocked for defending edits and contributions for which I am deeply passionate about and have a higher depth of knowledge than most people. I am fine with those articles being deleted and I consent to always abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, but I strongly feel that banning or blocking my account for defending those recent edits and contributions is going to far. It is for these reasons as well as fairness and my long time association with Wikipedia that I request to have my account reinstated and given another chance. Thank you and have a great day! Topbookclub Talk 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are not blocked for "defending edits" but for sockpuppetry. You will need to address that. Huon (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
Topbookclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand sockpuppetry is the reason but it is not what I honestly believe to be the actual cause of the block. I have two accounts, one that is over six yrs old and one that I created last year, but I did not try to deceive anyone with multiple accounts when dealing with this issue. I spoke to other editors using the same account and those editors found out on their own that I had another account. The articles in question have still not been deleted, and that is what all this was about anyway. A difference in opinion led to an editor who doesn't have any knowledge of a subject being hypertechnical and pedantic about Wikipedia guidelines to enforce his opinion. Despite what other editors may believe I fully understand the subject of the articles at hand and firmly believe that even without sources from major publications that the articles are worthy of inclusion because I have a deep understanding of the subject and have contributed to the subject on numerous occasions in many articles without objection from anyone. And I will state that I do believe the editor is somewhat biased about the subject of the article, however that is merely my opinion and not something I can state for a fact. Simply put, this editor did not feel he was getting his way and it resulted in the editor seeking administrative punishment against my account which has been in good standing since I created it almost seven years ago. As I have previously stated, I have contributed to thousands of articles with no problems and I believe it to be entirely unfair at this point to be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia over this one issue. While I do not claim to be a technical expert on each and every single Wikipedia guideline I always make sure to be truthful and well informed as possible in my contributions so that it helps to add to the credibility of Wikipedia. Making sure an article is 100% accurate is more important to me than merely sourcing major publications that may or not be truthful to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Rules come and go, but in order for Wikipedia to be a credible and reliable source of information we must make a valiant effort to be truthful in our contributions and I firmly believe I have done so in each and every single contribution. Again, it is for these reasons as well as fairness and my long time association with Wikipedia that I request to have my account reinstated. Thank you and have a great day! V/R, Topbookclub Talk
Decline reason:
Per User:Huon below. Furthermore, you don't seem to have the faintest clue of what constitutes vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
- Maybe I misunderstand your line of argument, but to me it seems that, despite having edited for six years, you just said that you'd ignore key content policies like WP:V in order to present original research if you are convinced it's true. I also cannot see, in all your lengthy explanation above, a statement on why your use of multiple accounts did not violate WP:SOCK. You have edited the same articles from both accounts without a declaration that they belong to the same editor. Huon (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit late here, but "Despite what other editors may believe I fully understand the subject of the articles at hand and firmly believe that even without sources from major publications that the articles are worthy of inclusion because I have a deep understanding of the subject and have contributed to the subject on numerous occasions in many articles without objection from anyone" is really quite a breathtaking refusal to accept Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:OWN policies - and you are never going to be unblocked while you continue with that line of argument. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- "I have contributed to thousands of articles". This account has edited 179 articles. Your other account, putting aside the fact that the two accounts have often edited the same articles, has edited 46. I assume that even you don't have the chutzpah to count edits when you failed to log in to either account. I have trouble with your math.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Huon and Bb23, having multiple accounts is not against Wiki policy, using them maliciously is against policy. I have already explained on numerous occasions (you do the math) that I didn't believe what I was doing wrong. I'm not saying that I wasn't wrong, but that the edits I made were in good faith because I know the information to be true. It's really that simple and I should not have to keep explaining it over and over. The majority of edits I make are about things I am truly interested in or an expert in the matter. I didn't join Wikipedia to be a Wikipedia admin, merciless Wiki-cop with an attitude, or an expert in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I could have easily done that by now if I really wanted to. I also don't know my specific edit count because to be honest it seems extremely egotistical to even know or post such a thing. However, after six years of making edits it surely seems like I have made thousands and thousands.
Anyway, my specific edit count isn't the focus of the discussion here. I was merely trying to point out the fact that I have been here way to long and contributed to far to many articles to be treated like I'm some guy who just popped up yesterday and starting screwing around with articles like a bored teenage kid with nothing better to do than destroy Wikipedia content. I am a person and I demand to be treated as such. I'm asking for the 3rd time that you reinstate my account. Most people would not go through all this. They would just create another account and move on, but I am intent on resolve this issue through the standard unblocking procedures. Reinstating my account is all that I am asking and it's not much to ask for from a person who has been here 6 years, 3 months, 13 days; 2,296 days; 198,383,341 seconds; 3,306,389 minutes; 55,106 hours; 328 weeks, or however you like your math. Again, I'm a person. Not just some number to brag about in your "accounts blocked" column. If an Administrator out there with a soul could reinstate my account I would deeply appreciate it. V/R,. Topbookclub ✉
- Repeating similar unblock requests over and over is disruptive. For that reason I've revoked your access to this page. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Topbookclub. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Fam Nice Battle Rapper.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The file File:Sacred Society WALL OF LEGENDS.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Thomas Martin Einstein for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Martin Einstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Martin Einstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bledwith (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Axe Music Film.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Sam Young Signature.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Samuel Scott Young 2010.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused. Low res. No obvious use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:PR2 Samuel Young.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:PR2 Samuel Young.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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the 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. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)