User talk:WiZeNgAmOtX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


Hope this helps. Hyper3 (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag[edit]

This article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. You are welcome to improve the article but please do not continue to add the tag. Thanks. --John (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not any authority above me. Please do stop posting on my talk page. Also, please do not delete my flags for speedy deletion. You have not a purpose legitimate according to wikipedia mandate. You are not an administrator. If you do interfere, I will report you.

Attacks in the article William A. Dembski[edit]

Warning
Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at William A. Dembski. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am an admin, not that it matters. I made no personal attacks on anyone, I simply declined your request for speedy deletion. --John (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you make your conclusion? I will still report you, as I do not care what position you have been given. If you are a contributor at all to the page, then you are biased. You should not be making any conclusion to the speedy deletion which I had proposed. The article of debate has much bias, more than actual information about the man, much of the time bias so poorly quoted by internet sources, media, and also unquoted--all of which is personal opinion. The word controversy appears more than does his name. I will still report you, as I do not care what position you have been given. I would like an other administrator to speedily delete the article; hence forth I will repeatedly post the criteria for speedy deletion until you cease your malition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiZeNgAmOtX (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've already posted at AN/I to allow another opinion on your actions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated adding of speedy tag. --John (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag; if you replace it again, you'll likely be blocked for edit-warring.--chaser (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Indeed, John appears to be correct -- please stop reposting the speedy deletion template, as doing so after (now multiple) administrators have declined the request seems pretty iffy. You are free to pursue the article's deletion by other means -- notably, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which I would be happy to help you set up. Ultimately, you may want to explain why you feel the page should be deleted, as it's been worked on by quite a few people for quite some time, now. As the saying goes, you'll probably catch more flies with honey. Wikipedians generally prefer to resolve disagreements via reasonable discussion, when possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support what has been said above as multiple administrators including myself feel the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. At this point, you should not replace the speedy deletion tag. If you think the article needs to be deleted, take it to WP:AFD. LadyofShalott 07:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WiZeNgAmOtX, as a relative newcomer, you may not be aware of the deletion process on Wikipedia. As a rule, if the Speedy Deletion of an article is not correct (which in this case, several admins have concurred that it is not), it is possible to propose the article for deletion (PROD). This means that there is a week for the article to be improved. If this does not happen in 7 days, the article can be deleted. If the PROD tag is removed, the article can be brought to Articles for Deletion (AfD), where editors can discuss the arguments for and against deletion.
Although you claim that the article is an attack on Dembski, I can see no evidence of this. May I suggest that you discuss the problems as you see them on the article's talk page. This will allow you to explain in more detail why this is an attack on Dembski - or at least which sections or sentences could be construed as attacking him.
If you have any further questions, you can either reply here, contact me on my talk page by click on "Contact Me", or type {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Your addition to Shawnigan Lake School has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Shawnigan Lake School alumini and holder of Shawnigan Lake School legacy, I do have legal voice to decisions concerning the School. Also, such publicly released information by the government of British Columbia is sourced from the school it self. Thirdly, I did not copy the removed material "verbatum". I am sure plenty of edits "appear" to be what they really are not. You are forgiven. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Shawnigan Lake School has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are participating in is now veiled vandalism. I should not need post annoying stop signs on your talk page. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not vandalism. He is correct. It is not even a matter of having permission; wikipedia content cannot be simply a copy of a copyrighted work, such as your recent insertion. The correct procedure is to rewrite a short account of the essential information and then cite it to your source if appropriate. Make sure you read and understand the policy Wikipedia:Copyrights. Note that you should avoid accusing other editors of vandalism over a matter of disagreement like this. The fact that you don't yet follow the policy only makes it worse. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. I do under stand your policies. Please refrain from condescendingly assuming that you do know all policies and I do not know all policies; prejudice toward new contributors is flagrant and not uncommon issue for wikipedia and is what we are attempting to prevent. The school owns such "copyrighted history" and that document was maintained by the government of British Columbia. The Shawnigan Lake School might be compared to Deerfield Academy in the United States of America. It is justifiably presently and historically prominant and important; rather than claim copyright infringement, you might want to glance over the disputed material and disputed writing. Simple admission of lack of interest or "time" to do such makes your involvement even less appropriate. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material you added is mostly a simple copy-paste from this page which explicitly includes a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Use of this text is not possible given the wikipedia policy cited. You have added some tags and cites, but the text you are using is the copyright text. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we establish who owns the copyright? The licence on the web page implies there are copyright conditions incompatible with Wikipedia's. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnigan Lake School owns the copy right. The licence on the web page implies that there are copy right conditions incompatible with researchers. I am associated with Shawnigan Lake School. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've just acknowledged that the material can't be used under wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. The appropriate procedure is as I explained previously. You give a summary of the basic information; not a direct quote of the source. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are claiming you have the authority to release copyright to the public domain, or under a free copyright licence, we would first need to establish whether you have the authority to do that. That would involve contact with the school. There are established procedures for doing this, linked above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed history is not subject to any hold of right. The archive [[1]] is "MS-1485

Shawnigan Lake School Microfilm (neg.) 1916-1981 16 mm [A01366]; 35 mm 25 reels [A01365; A01367-A01390]". I feel that you have neglected to research the dispute, as had the editors (probably good natured yet ignorant vandals--though suspiciously the same editors involved in my petition to delete an article), out of disinterest or mere assumption. There exists a confirmation bias. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion procedures[edit]

Stop adding a "prod" notice to William Dembski. There is a formal procedure for seeking to have an article deleted, and you must follow it. This is a formal policy which applies for all articles on wikipedia. You can read about it at WP:DEL#Proposed_deletion.

In brief, it works like this.

  1. Any editor can add a "prod" notice but only ONCE. You've done that.
  2. Any editor can remove the prod notice after it was added. Several editors have done that.
  3. You must not restore your prod notice once it has been removed. This is wikipedia policy, described in WP:DEL.
  4. Once your prod has been removed, the next step available to you is to put the article up for deletion, at Deletion discussions.

I believe you are working in good faith, but you need to read and understand the policies here, or else you are likely to be blocked for a while, just to avoid disruption to the project. Blocks like this are not a meant to be a punishment, but simply a way to stop the project being disrupted and give you time to figure out the correct procedures for doing things and working with other editors who may disagree with you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Dembski[edit]

You would be advised to raise any concerns you have about this article at WP:BLP/N instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The edit warring is the repeated insertion of copyvio text into the Shawnigan Lake School article. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

You have no means of determining whether I violated any copy law. You are infringing upon my wikipedia freedoms and ability to use this history by association with the legal owner ship of such records; also, I did type, how ever similar, my own history of the school--quoting the original source as necessary to avoid plagarism. Any edit warring was warned prior to such warring as unwarranted and provoked by other contributors and administrators related to other issues pending that they felt controversial. Their complete bias and prejudice toward me as well as complete lack of knowledge or authority toward the situation prompted my continued "undoing" of said history removal. I will continue to reinsert such text and if blocked or censored then well proceed to have wikipedia and the associated administrators prosecuted by any body at my disposal. Attempted conversation with said editors on mine and their talk pages did not promote any change or provoke any response. I should not be blocked.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit-warring, but you appear to be confused on a few other points. Identifying the source of the material you are copying does not give you a legal right to publish copyrighted material on Wikipedia. No one is 'biased' against you, except to the extent that they do not want copyrighted text in Wikipedia. And your promise to continue inserting this material merely means that I'm adding the school page to my watchlists, so I can block you indefinitely if you do it again when your block expires. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 November 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've not been blocked for the copyvio (although you're in the wrong there, too). You were blocked for edit warring. Perhaps you should address the actual reasons for your block? ➜ Redvers❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞ 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the person that provoked the stated "edit war". I did warn the editors of the article that I did have proper authority to post aforementioned materials, what you do insist with lack of reason or logic is "copyvio", and attempted conversation concerning the issue. As for mine address to the block, one administrator would only need read what I did write as my appeal. Strange is it that I need repeat what is typed on the very page subject to such repitition. I do feel that I am being "trolled". Redvers's profile is also strangely inactive and devoid of any usual blog for an administrator. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I assumed you were a student from your writing style. If you really do own the copyright on this text, you're probably the president of the school board, or maybe the superintendant of schools. Can you send an email confirming that you release this text under the GDFL from your official school email address? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a period of Indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thanks, MJroots- I completely missed the bit where this user says he will be suing Wikipedia. Now we'll just all have to wait until the lawsuit is concluded. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of the SLS Board of Governors:

c/o Shawnigan Lake School Shawnigan Lake, B.C. V0R 2W0 (Telephone: 250-743-5516 Fax: 743-6200 Email: red@sls.bc.ca

I did not explicitly state that I would be suing the Foundation; I did state that I would prosecute wikipedia and its administrators for their doltish behaviours and flippant responses to recognition of those behaviours. "Wikipedia is not a video game" should be taken very seriously. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a legal threat, it smells like a legal threat. It would probably taste like a legal threat too, therefore its a legal threat. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are merely afraid of "getting in to trouble". Please refer to WP:EW#WHATISNT and WP:DOLT. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also be wise to read the full article WP:DCASAS. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you: " I will continue to reinsert such text and if blocked or censored then well proceed to have wikipedia and the associated administrators prosecuted by any body at my disposal" (emphasis mine) - which certainly sounds like a legal threat.
As to your rights to put copyright material onto Wikipedia, as others have said, you need to provide proof of this, as per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia - basically, you either need to get your webmaster to alter the site and "Make a note permitting reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) at the site of the original publication" or "Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation, ideally using the email template at WP:CONSENT.". As you can appreciate, having someone say it's their text is not a legally-binding state of affairs - anyone could say that, for legal reasons we require more proof. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sounds like a legal threat is not necessarily a legal threat and so should be treated like a possible legal threat until communication has been established that would suggest other wise; action should not be taken on the part of wikipedia administrators upon that percieved legal threat until such suspiscion has been clarified (WP:EW#WHATISNT and WP:DOLT and WP:DCASAS. As far as copy right is concerned, we have no legal hold on the referenced history of the School. There exists no hold on any information and is actually written [[2]] as part of the referenced original document. Those restricted articles "until 2013" are only those film reels stated to exist prior to and listed following the history. That history is in public domain. By referencing a historical source, which, incidentally came from our School museum and historical society, I have avoided any definition of plagarism; also, I had rewritten that history. Though by the same format with the same quote, the history is not "copypasta" as nor it is "copyvia". WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My final comments on this:
  1. the wording on your comment has been taken (quite rightly in my personal opinion) as a legal threat. Blocking your account is standard procedure as per Wikipedia:No legal threats - which is a policy, not a guideline or an essay. It should normally be followed unless there are strong reasons not to - which in this case there are not.
  2. the bcarchives clearly shows that the information is for research purposes only - Wikipedia would not be using it for research, but for what is in effect worldwide publication. As such, this material would be inadmissible under the stated conditions.
As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPLT WP:BITE "Listen actively. [...]

Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them." WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did talk to you, extensively. Note the many warnings above your block notice. You still don't appear to be withdrawing your threat of legal action, nor are you agreeing to stop posting copyrighted material. Your block can be reset to its original length once you have clearly stated that you are not taking any legal action against Wikipedia and its administrators, and will not take such action in the future. However, you won't be able to copy this text to Wikipedia, although you could add some of the essential facts from it to the relevant article, citing your source and fully phrasing them in your own words, as you learned in English class. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell that to the wikimedia arbitration committee, real administration at wikimedia, and will be glad to know that your removal will be swift and totally unnecessary. By ignoring my repeated denial of any threat of legal action, you are attempting to have me grovel or humble my self. You are abusing the administrative system and find your self amongst those on the banned administrator list. The same is applicable to any other administrator involved. Being condescending constantly due to my "new" status on wikipedia only inflames your guilt--pun intended, as I will have you "burn". You have very much infuriated me. I have attempted the most reasonable and calm direction at every turn with your dodging my comments. Being that wikipedia records will prove that, you may be wise to not deny any more. Also, you still maintain that the history is copy righted. Simple admission of your personal error and errors of your fellow administrators (where, by the way of situation, you are not meant to have discussed any issue pending review on the administrator discussion page as is policy for such review) would make you appear much less foolish and flippant. The only threat that I have not "withdrawn" is that against you and your cabal. I hope that you are at the least intelligent enough to realize that I am not a child. I hope that you are not a child. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not yet withdrawn your legal threat. You've repeatedly denied making it, but you haven't yet clearly stated that you aren't going to sue, either. And, no, you have not said or done anything that would make me doubt my initial thought that you are a student who is not fully master of the skills of research writing. There are many teenagers who are very useful contributors at Wikipedia, though, so that is not a problem here. Of course, your personal threats against me, a very nice person who has only tried to clearly explain the rules so that you can follow them, mean that you should not expect any further help from me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen is right. People have been talking to you continuously now for ages. Just look at this page! You have also not retracted the threat of prosecution.
When people kept talking to you above, you just kept blowing them off and insisting that you know policies and that everyone else is wrong. Then you went into a repeated cycle of adding material in violation of WP:NFC. If you still don't understand why your additions were being reverted under wikipedia policy WP:COPYVIO, then what hope has anyone got? Talking had been tried and you were still disrupting the project. A short term block was imposed, after all attempts at talking had failed to stop the disruption, just to let things settle down.
In your request to unblock you show no understanding of why the block was applied. The reason was edit warring. You failed to understand the guideline WP:EW#WHATITISNOT, which is actually explaining why people reverting your additions were NOT technically edit warring. You then made everything worse by explicitly declaring your intent to keep up the disruption indefinitely and also also to pursue other remedies against wikipedia; specifically prosecution.
If you are truly serious about wanting to contribute to wikipedia, then you need to
  1. Explicitly retract your threat of prosecution. You need to face up to what you said, recognize that you should not have said it, and retract it without reservation. As long as this remains a possible issue, the block is going to stay. The onus is now on you to state clearly and unambiguously that you withdraw the threat of prosecution, and that you agree to work with the community under the normal dispute resolution procedures. Its not a matter of humiliating you; it is simply a matter of you making a clear and unambiguous retraction of your earlier remarks about prosecution.
  2. Explicitly recognize that you can't actually add copyright material unless and until the current copyright notice is removed and officially replaced with an open license allowing free use to anyone -- not only wikipedia, but anyone. That's the policy which everyone has been trying to explain to you. The onus is not on admins to "research" this; you have to actively change the copyright status of material before it can be used as text in articles. That's a wikipedia requirement, quite independent of what permissions that school might give. By far the easiest approach is as I suggested previously. Rewrite in your own words a completely new brief statement of suitable encyclopedic information, and then cite it to the source for verifiability.
You also badly need to assume good faith of editors and admins here. For instance: I have genuinely been trying to help, from the start, and you have done nothing in response but insult and make pejorative assumptions about my motives. That's not on. It is a basic requirement that you assume good faith on the part of people who may disagree with you, just as I assume you are working in good faith as well.
You also need to stop using the word "vandal" in the way you have been using it on this page. Again, there are guidelines you should read: WP:VANDAL. No-one here has been "vandalising" as the word is used on wikipedia; not you, not me, not the others who have reverted you. It is true that you have made many changes that have been reverted as inconsistent with policies, (specifically the guidelines on use of tags, and policies on use of copyright material) but that is still not the same as vandalism. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already posted this: "The disputed history is not subject to any hold of right. The archive 1 is "MS-1485

Shawnigan Lake School Microfilm (neg.) 1916-1981 16 mm [A01366]; 35 mm 25 reels [A01365; A01367-A01390]". I feel that you have neglected to research the dispute, as had the editors (probably good natured yet ignorant vandals--though suspiciously the same editors involved in my petition to delete an article), out of disinterest or mere assumption. There exists a confirmation bias. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)" WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that the material is not copyrighted and you have no apparent understanding of Canadian copyright law and its applications to the United States of America world wide web domain. I was reverting removal of long in place material that I had earlier posted to compliment already existing informations posted by mine School. If I need you to speak to the British Columbian government, the government of the School, or our Information Technology department, then please--I have already provided their contact information. I have already, in posting your policies, demonstrated a clear understanding of those related policies which you refer me to. I have read your articles and am very intelligent, likely more than you could comprehend. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that mine pursuit of arbitration by your wikipedia peer review and revealing of your cabal in conspiring from suspicion and prejudice toward me and mine views and mine actions, as revealed in wikipedia's archive of your administration page, can be avoided by your admission of fault. Making your guilt worse, all of the parties involved, is the constant denial of logic. All reminds me of the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment, where you feel that you need to stay in a position of percieved authority (though explicitly stated that you are no higher in authority than any other contributor) and in your anonymitity with group action feel the ability and right to maintain such power against a new contributor (me). The continued doubt of mine innocence and so increasing foolishness and condescending behaviours on your parts makes you feel too far involved to cease illogical behaviours. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you maintain that the word "prosecution" should be tied to "court". I do believe that your honest misinterpretation of mine "prosecution" of you as legal in some civil or criminal sense is due in much part to media and common misconception. My prosecution of you can not be legal, as such prosecution of unique entities on a wiki is not allowed by law; rather, I intend to prosecute you by any means allowed to me (by pursuit of arbitration, banning, removal from administration, etc.). I hope that any possible confusion is resolved and you now can understand my perspective. I am not a student. You may contact the provided Secretary or the School's Information Technology department. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of this page, there appears the notice "Unless indicated otherwise, this page and all contents are Copyright ©, BC Archives, Royal BC Museum". You may also want to review the BC Archives' page Access and Usage: Using Material and Information from the Archives. You are simply wrong about the copyright issue, and I agree that you should be blocked until you acknowledge your error and promise not to insert the material again. Deor (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the history is property of no person as specified by the Free Information Act and the association to the Shawnigan Lake School. That permission must be requested of my school is in place so that researchers writing about the School do not write unfavourable or any other unpredictable articles about the School's past. Information security is used so that corporations are not subject to believable slander. Also, those film reels were provided by the Shawnigan Lake School museum--not referring to the British Columbia society. The restriction is upon those film reels. That you are not able to associate the introduction with the conclusion and seem to focus upon the history of the School--irrelevant to permissions--is alarming. I understand that you may be in unique conclusion, though I still need to check any logs of yours for conspiracy, and so am treating you as acting with good nature and intention. Also, punishment for any percieved "error" and requiring that I promise "not to insert the material again" is not proper procedure. I should be under a twenty and four hour ban, though placed less appropriate discussion with me concerning the issue, and that ban should have been removed for the reasons which I have already discussed with your peers. An indefinite ban is not appropriate, as I have not warranted such. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction that permission must be sought is precisely why this text cannot be used in wikipedia. Wikipedia policy means that information in articles can be taken and used by anyone for anything they like. Hence, you can't simply copy this text into a wikipedia article; it would subvert the permissions you speak of. This isn't complicated. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no restriction over the historical text. The article is not even concerning the text. The link is to a British Columbia archive concerning microfilm reels of documents not explained other than by list--under our Board's decision to hold such completely restricted until 2013. The original documents are located with in our Archive, our museum, which is located under one of our buildings. The museum is rarely visited by any party. We do not restrict access to those archives in our posession beyond that restriction of entering our gates. If you do not accept this online and easily accessed source of information for this encyclopedia, then I do suggest a mere reference to my Archive be sufficient. That historical information, that text which I had not copied and pasted but reinterpreted by mine own conventions, is not restricted by any law or legal entity. That information is not secret and is not regulated by any body other than as free to quote. It is publicly posted as well known history of our school, documented by our school, etc.. You are right when stating that the issue is not complicated. I am determined to reveal such. This all is absurd and I do wonder as to why it is so absurd. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I need not adhere to WP:FUG, as the histories are in public domain by simple avaliability of common knowledge. Also, if reverted and my ban extended, I hope that the history section is not left destroyed as is currently. You will find, surely, that the history section already existed before my supposed interference between peoples I do feel are vandals and mine legitimate and factual inclusions. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

please read the above text contained within this section

Decline reason:

I'm thinking you're going to need to take this up with the arbitration committee, as you refuse to abide by what administrators have determined (correctly, in my eyes) to be sufficient violations of Wikipedia policy to warrant an indefinite block. Hint: when everyone says you're wrong, in particular people very familiar with Wikipedia rules and policies, you very well might be wrong. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:13, 10 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

there is no remaining reason to block my editing capabilities; further more, I am not able to petition the WP:AP as suggested by administrator Jpgordon. That user must have not realized such was not possible during an IP and user ban.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for three violations:

  1. Edit-warring and violation of the WP:3RR rule,
  2. Copyright violation, and threat to continue the same if unblocked ("I will continue to reinsert such text and ...")
  3. Making legal threats ("... if blocked or censored then well proceed to have wikipedia and the associated administrators prosecuted by any body at my disposal")
The last two violations are reasons for your block being indefinite. Since no admin. hhere seems willing to unblock you, you can appeal to the Arbitration Commitee by emailing them at arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org. However, in my opinion, there is no chance of your block being rescinded, until you state explicitly that you have no intention to sue wikipedia or any of its editors, and commit to discussing the copyrighted issue and not adding the disputed text back till a consensus is reached. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 10 November 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.

Question[edit]

Will you please state explicitly, "I have no plans to pursue legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors"? If you will say exactly that, I will remove the indefinite block. LadyofShalott 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ameniable to that. Original 24h block still stands though. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course honor that block. LadyofShalott 18:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have wasted my time and so are liable as a body for physical and mental damages. Further, you are in acting in conflict with my intellectual properties and so are in violation of your own copy right laws and those by the Wikimedia Foundation. I will continue to pursue my arguement with those other than your crowd. The second block denial was made by an involved administrator. You all have followed me from my request that an article would be deleted to this now redundant "discussion for concensus". What you are now involved in is called blackmail. Have fun with your days. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess he doesn't want the block lifted. That's okay, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. LadyofShalott 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block modified[edit]

In light of the continued threats, I have removed WiZeNgAmOtX's ability to edit their own talk page. The user is free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee through email. Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that It would be nice to have his ability to talk back restored for the time being to get a response.

Dear. WiZeNgAmOtX, while I am not an admin I would like for you to say "I wont pursue legal action against wikipedia" I understand your dilemma and I belive that if you say thoses words, you will have your editing privleges back.--Coldplay Expert 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the section immediately above. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Being an uninvolved user (not admin) I just thought that WiZeNgAmOtX would respond better.--Coldplay Expert 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the talkpage privileges as per User:Mjroots' note on my talk page. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hold any current intent to pursue legal action against wikipedia. Please note that this does not qualify as a legal contract. No reasonable human would take me to have ever proposed that, even before repeated clarification--most ignored. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've reset the block to the original 24h block imposed for edit warring. This may also be lifted upon your acknowledgement of the reason for its imposition, and a solemn promise not to re-intoduce the text added in the exact form it was added. You are welcome to re-write the text into your own words and reference it to the original source. Alternatively, if the source displays a Wikipedia-compatible licence then the text may be re-added as it was. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad that a settlement could be reached.--Coldplay Expert 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WiZeNgAmOtX&oldid=1139342602"