User talk:Musical Mind20
Welcome!
Hello, Musical Mind20, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Meelar (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Places in Trafford[edit]
Thanks for removing out of date information, I'd completely forgotten the articles needed revisiting. Because I saw your changes I was able to update them. Nev1 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet accusation[edit]
Musical Mind20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of being a sockpuppet and was blocked before I was able to defend myself. After reading the ivestigation against me, I realised that with regard to editing Blue Dog Coalition ([IP edit]), the IP address (Which is a University IP) and my account are the same, this is due to whenever I try and log onto my account it sometimes fails to allow me access and on that particular day I had two wikipedia pages open and clearly only one of them had logged me onto the account and the other hadn't. This has happened to me on numerous occasions when I have been trying to uploading pictures and at the same time have another artcle open so I can paste it next to image. But that could be due to it being a University IP address i'm not sure. The LGBTory editing and adding of the "quakish" articles is not my editing as I have no particluar interest in that area, (As I have said this is a University IP used by nearly 20,000 people), as my main interests lie in American Politics and uploading images of politicians which the vast majority of my account edits are. With regard to the images I have uploaded, I have been accused of "replacing Marquis images" for "minor conservative politicians" but if you look more closely at all the British politicians images I have uploaded whether they be Liberal-Democrats or Conservative they all have one thing in common: They are all Government Ministers and part of the Cameron Ministry. There is nothing suspicious about the images that have been uploaded, the images the sock uploaded were from nearly two years ago and for another editor to say "seems obvious enough" I think is completely belittling as all my edits and uploads on wikipedia have been sourced and accredited to the right people and I have only edited without using my account twice: The time that I have told you about already for Blue Dog and another when editing the article about Kay Granger being edited by someone who might be her.[I edited using the IP] So for me to be accused because a potential sock also may have used the same IP as me is both unfair and unjust. As with uploading images I merely thought if American politicians have their images shown on wikipedia, then why shouldn't british ones have theirs aswell, and since no one else had done it I thought that I might do it. Also I used Open Government Licence so all of the images were uploaded using the correct procedure. Just because images of these people have been deleted before and I have uploaded new and referenced images does not make me a sockpuppet, also with the Blue Dog edit, my only edit was to put the names into sections thereby making it easier to read, less compact and saved space on the article. [view] I hope that I may be unblocked so that I can continue adding more pictures to the articles that need them, as I even got a thank-you from another editor on my talk page for my edits...Plus I have a long list of Congressmen/women who are in desperate need of an official picture I can assure you :) Thank-you Musical Mind20 (talk) 6:13 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
Checkuser-confirmed sock. TNXMan 15:02, 10 February 2012 (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.
- Just for the record, the first part of this request appears to be bollocks - NAT doesn't work that way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Musical Mind20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The user that is declining my request has said that I am a "confirmed sock", but I am not, this is a shared University IP that thousands of others including students also use and so for his reply to be: checkuser-confirmed sock, just is not accurate, as he said that I am a sock because I added pictures to some articles where the picture has been deleted, but I fail to see how that makes me a sock as I have so far added around 60 sourced and referenced pictures to articles as they are either Ministers or Congressmen/women. Plus for user Bwilkins to say that the first part of my request is bollocks, doesn't mean it is, as on quite a few occasions when I have been trying to log on it says error and so I have to continuously try to log on and when I finally do the other wikipedia windows that I have open don't automatically connect to my page. So as I stated before I am not a sockpuppet, I have never contributed to any pages that "Marquis" has contributed to and so for me to be accused, when all my edits have been legit and referenced I think is unfair! Musical Mind20 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If we say that our investigatory tools, including but not limited to one like Checkuser that not everyone has, lead us to believe that the same person has used more than one account, then that's what we believe regardless of what you believe. All your arguments are irrelevant in light of that finding on our part. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2012 (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.
Musical Mind20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The user who just declined my block says that "In light of that finding" though if you look at the sockpuppet investigation [[1]] all the editors have stated that it is the IP edits that are suspicious, so the "findings" are based solely on a Univeristy IP address which as i've stated before I have used only twice to edit as I have an account and is used by thousands of students. Though I am accused of uploading images on articles where a socks images had been deleted nearly a year and a half ago, I stated that rather then it being suspicious I added images to those articles becuase they are all Ministers in the Cameron Ministry and thought that their articles should have their official pictures on rather then have no pictures at all Musical Mind20 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Very interesting, but the coincidences go way beyond what you have mentioned. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2012 (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.
Musical Mind20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The whole accusations against me are based on one edit to LGBTory by the IP address, and that edit comprised solely of someone reverting an edit but I think that is a ridiculous reason to block me as I am going to keep on trying to be unblocked as I have done nothing wrong all off my edits and uploads have been legit and just because someone else used the IP does not mean I should be penalised for it. As if there is a murderer living on your street, that doesn't mean everyone on the street is also a murderer, so why should I be punished just because a fellow student in a University of thousands is also a sockpuppet, it is not fair!
Decline reason:
This request seems to be omitting quite a bit of information. There is strong behavioral evidence and a positive checkuser result; I see no reason to remove this block. This is your fourth request; please direct future request to WP:BASC. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2012 (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.
Your claim that "The whole accusations against [you] are based on one edit to LGBTory by the IP address" is false. There is more than one blocked account with most striking coincidences with you in editing history, and in addition a checkuser concluded that you matched at least two of them. I said in declining your last unblock request, "the coincidences go way beyond what you have mentioned", and that applies equally to your new unblock request. I have looked very carefully at the editing history of the relevant accounts, and there is considerable behavioural evidence, quite aside from the checkuser evidence. Persistently making unblock requests based on the same false claim (viz. that the block is based purely on a coincidence with an IP edit) is a waste of our time. I suggest to the reviewing admin, if they decide to decline this request, then they should also consider removing talk page access to prevent further waste of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Adam Putnam Official.jpg[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adam Putnam Official.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Avi (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- This item is a free article as if you look here it comes under this act: This work was created by a government unit of the state of Florida and is in the public domain under Florida law. Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be. This file is part of the "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, [which includes the work of] the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to [Florida] law or [its] Constitution" (Florida Constitution, § 24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work at Fla. Stat. § 119.011(11)), and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed (see, e.g., "§ 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) [authorizing the Department of the Lottery to hold copyrights]; § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) [permitting the Department of Citrus to hold legal title to copyrights]; § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) [authorizing universities to secure copyrights in certain works], § 119.084 [permitting agencies to hold copyright for data processing software the agencies have created]). It is consequently in the public domain according to court interpretation of the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 24(a) and Florida Statutes, § 119.01. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)
Possibly unfree File:Eric Pickles Official.jpg[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eric Pickles Official.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
