User talk:Alex Mitchell of The Goodies

Alex Mitchell of The Goodies, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Alex Mitchell of The Goodies! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright notices

Please discuss your copyright concerns on the talk pages of the files concerned before removing them based on your personal interpretation. And kindly don't vandalise my talk page by falsely claiming that I have been blocked. Zaian (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-TLD

Template:PD-TLD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brianjd (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Alex Mitchell of The Goodies! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Fair use, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is especially problematic when you're deleting fair use tags, over an apparent misunderstanding of what can be copyrighted. (Yes, you can own the copyright to an image of an object you don't own.) — kwami (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about being able to own the copyright to an image of something you don’t own. But, Wikipedia requires you to licence any image that you take under a free licence unless there is no option too. In this case, you are free to licence this image you took under a free licence or the public domain. Even if you couldn’t, there are dozens of free representations of them such as the one at the beginning of the article.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't respond soon, I'll change the licence back to public domain without further notice.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

I said, stop posting on my talk page. Your writing is so incoherent that I can barely make sense of it. You can ping me if you need my attention.

The word is "troll".

If you vandalize files on WP, I will rv you and report you to arbcom. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are my sentences "incoherent"?--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't respond to the question the licence on File X back to public domain."

Anyway, you aren't working in good faith, and I don't wish to debate your high-handed accusations since you don't appear to have an actual policy point. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I give up... for now... But you should know that these fair use images (are they even fair use?) are most definately replaceable.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then please replace them! I'd love for them to be replaced. If you can find legible imgs of the texts -- not even of the entire pieces -- then you'll have my thanks and gratitude.

Also, it would be helpful if you cited/linked to policy. I have no idea what a "license troll" is even supposed to be. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thsnks, you made me laugh with that question. Anyways, a "licence troll" is someone like you who puts wrong licences on files you upload. They also often put multiple copyright tags and rationales on the file. Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Not understanding and being uncivil

Hi Alex, you clearly misunderstand copyright and Wikipedia processes and policies, and your behaviour towards other users is unhelpful. Please do better. Zaian (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wdym? Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave better towards other people, even if you disagree with them. You have had several warnings from different people recently for your confrontational approach. Zaian (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Auto-translate

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Auto-translate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

smh why can’t Template:Autotranslate just exist on Wikipedia. It is on Wikimedia Commons, why not Wikipedia?--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Commons is a multi-lingual project, and the English Wikipedia isn't. Also, your recreation of the template didn't even work properly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see it all makes sense now. I was trying to create Commons Template:TOO-US on Wikipedia but the template on Commons contains Template:Autotranslate within it which was why I was also trying to create Autotranslate template on Wikipedia. How do I create Template TOO-US on Wikipedia without Template:Autotranslate?--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recreating TOO-US on Wikipedia! I see that you are very unconvinced that it is needed on Wikipedia. But I have a good reason, would be for a logo that is a candidate to be moved to the Wikimedia commons but is not in the Wikimedia Commoms yet.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing or creating user pages for other users

Please stop. I've noticed at least two instances of this. The first was when you edited Blaze Wolf's userpage with a weird youtube threat of some sort, in response to him validly removing an image license template from your user page. I've also seen you create user pages for other users with the same meme/vandalism. If it continues, you're going to catch a block. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will stop--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:InklingGirl error per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InklingGirl error. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a sock puppet even is.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC) @Alex Mitchell of The Goodies: On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.[reply]

Sockpuppetry takes various forms:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions Using another person's account (piggybacking) Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry) Misuse of multiple accounts is a serious breach of community trust. It may lead to:

a block of all related accounts a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock) on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sockpuppetry or certain other abuses.[1] An editor using multiple accounts for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose (see below). Optionally, the user and user talk pages of some of the accounts can be redirected to those of another. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.

While there are legitimate use of alternative accounts, undisclosed alternative accounts might be connected publicly through a variety of means. Mr. Vinyl Raccon (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2022 (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).

Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea what a “sockpuppet” even is or the InklingGirl error account. I am not even a girl. Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. PhilKnight (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2022 (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.

Quitting Wikipedia forever

I shall now quit Wikipedia forever because I got blocked for something I didn’t do.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me more? -- Python Drink (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]