User talk:Dam!ta

User talk:Dam!ta/Archive1 User talk:Dam!ta/Archive2 User talk:Dam!ta/Archive3

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I was blocked for two days, then all of a sudden Yamla unfaily blocked my for seven days. For what reason? As I said once before, he is doing this on purpose. And is over using his powers. It's not fair. Yesterday my ban said it would expire, today, then when I clocked on, If you would like to know when the block will expire, please search for your name or IP on the block list.', it said on the 14th.

I'm reporting this unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org, and any other person I can find that I can contact.

[1] Dam!ta 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi there, I'm very sorry about my wrongful revert of your edits, I pressed the wrong button on my popups, apologies. Kind regards -- Bane s 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Fergiecover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fergiecover.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your recent replacement of a free image with a copyrighted image on the article about Stacy Ferguson, and the problems with the fair-use rationale on that image's page, have led to yet another block. Wikipedia takes copyright and fair-use very seriously. --Yamla 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, as you did to User talk:Dam!ta, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Adina Howard

[2]

- Yamla keeps banning me on purpose everyday! He watches every move I make, when I'm not doing anything wrong. So I miss coded a photo, and put newspaper and not magazine, but I cleary wrote in the coding a magazine cover from fergiefan.com. I don't believe this user should be in charge of banning anyone. He is a little too ban happy for my taste. I'm a new user and i'm getting better with editing, but this is too much, this is his forth time, no other user has had a problem but him. Dam!ta 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep uploading copyvios what do you expect? There are multiple problems with your upload.

"The image is a promotional image originally created by Cosmo, intended for wide distribution." - False, it is a magazine cover not a promotional shot, they do not freely distribute the cover for promotional purposes.
"No free or public domain images have been located" - False, you removed a free image on the page to replace it with this one. --pgk^(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The image is of lower resolution and quality than the original image (copies made from it will be of inferior quality)." - Is of reasonable quality, as a digital image it won't degrade when copied....

--pgk^(talk) 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleary, whatever. As I said I'm a new user, you don't learn every single rule overnight, these bannings are cleary over the top. I've done great work on Wikipedia. Ban me forever if you wish. Peace. Dam!ta 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned and blocked for this before, if I were in your position I would take the hint that perhaps your understanding of these issues is lacking, I'd then probably try and ask *first* when not sure. If you'd posted a talk page message for Yamla first saying "I'm thinking of uploading .... for ...., any advice?", I'm sure you'd have got some help. Regardless of you claims of newness the second item on that list is nothing to do with being new, you were fully aware you were removing an existing image for this image. --pgk^(talk) 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: When blocking may not be used

Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. And he and you know I was acting in good faith. Get over yourself.

You don't get an assumption of good faith forever. You have had mutiple problems and been blocked multiple times, an assumption of good faith is not the equivelant of disengaging your brain. I suggest you get over your own "I'm the victim" mentality and look to how you can resolve the issues in the future. --pgk^(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dam!ta 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]