User talk:CityMorgue

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!

Hey CityMorgue! Thanks for asking a neat question about history page statistics regarding edit counts. Edit counts are a rough indicator of activity and you can get an even better sense of an editor's contributions by looking at the fraction of minor edits. If you're curious about when to mark an edit as minor, take a look at WP:MINOR. Come back to the Teahouse any time!

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, CityMorgue. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Phil and Lil DeVille.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Phil and Lil DeVille.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! –CityMorgue (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chuckie Finster.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chuckie Finster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oprah's Next Chapter.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oprah's Next Chapter.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Susie Carmichael.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Susie Carmichael.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Ok, I get it. Every file I've contributed to Wikipedia is being removed. Awesome. –CityMorgue (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Phil and Lil DeVille.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Phil and Lil DeVille.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Image

Do not edit war over an image instead of trying to achieve a consensus as you are meant to. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 01:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I can say the same thing to you buddy. I don't understand the issue. The image is better quality, more recent, and uploaded to commons appropriately. Let's do a consensus! --CityMorgue (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No it is not. A clear image where her face is visible is and would always be preferable to a distant image. End of talk. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: You're obviously blind, the image is clear and she is visible. Face and everything. The current image is a sloppy crop zoom at an unflattering angle. Which I know isn't our concern but why not use a more recent, nicer quality image? You're just jealous I found a better photo. END OF TALK 💅 --CityMorgue (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If that is your rationale of me being jealous, then don't quote me or ping me. As I said, I'm not interesting in discussing here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justinboyer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Appealing block

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was accused of "sockpuppetry" I don't even know what that is. I had no intention of being a sockpuppet and no intention of violating the rules of Wikipedia. My old account (Justinboyer) was blocked because I tried uploading copyrighted material. I was confused at the time and it wasn't my intention to violate the terms of Wikipedia. It was a big misunderstanding and I regret my inability to understand the situation before it got out of hand. After I was blocked, I was eager to continue contributing to Wikipedia so I started this account (CityMorgue). I studied the rules of Wikipedia in order to become a better editor. I'm still learning. I have no idea why I was accused of sockpuppetry and why this account was also blocked. It has never been my intention to disrupt the operations of Wikipedia. My only goal as a contributor is to improve the content and experience. I wasn't even given a chance to understand. Please help. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Checkuser block on original account. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 30 July 2014 (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.

(Non-administrator observation) What you have described is a form of sockpuppetry known as block evasion. Blocked means blocked; you cannot just create another account, even if you intend to contribute constructively. You must request unblocking on your original account and convince an administrator that you will edit constructively. But since you've been honest about your other account (and I assume you want to continue editing with this account rather than Justinboyer), I invite an administrator to consider the request here. If you are ever blocked again, please don't create yet another account. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I didn't mean to break any rules. I wouldn't have mentioned my other account on my user page if I was purposely trying to evade the block. It makes sense now and yes I would like to continue using this account. I hope it works out, I would very much like to continue contributing. Thank you. _CityMorgue (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CityMorgue, I believe you can contribute constructively, but you should raise the appeal from your old account Justinboyer. Please read all the guidelines regarding copyrighted material and I should also suggest you to stay away from image related edits for sometime. Since you also edit music related articles, fighting vandals and reverting vandalism related edits might be an area you want to focus. We really need help there. What do you say? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. The original block on User:Justinboyer was a checkuser block - meaning that there was possible sockpuppetry/block evasion going on even before this account was created. There's definitely more to this than meets the eye initially. Pinging Courcelles, as the blocking checkuser, for an opinion. Either way, no run-of-the-mill admin can action this unblock request. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126:, @IndianBio:, @Yunshui: It's funny, all I wanted to do was change the image of the Lady Gaga article to a more flattering image. I found an image on Commons and verified that it had been uploaded with the correct permissions. That's all I wanted to do. I wanted to improve the article. I just wanted to be a positive, constructive contributor to Wikipedia. I have so much respect for this website and the people who dedicate their days to editing. You are all teachers. But it's obvious that some administrators don't encourage the learning process. I'm sorry I've made mistakes. I always try to fix them and make them right. I'm sorry I'm not the best. Ever since my original account was blocked, I always check to make sure I'm doing things right before I click save. Even when I do it the right way, there are administrators who want things done their way. They're bullies. And I'm not talking about the people in this conversation. You all have been very helpful and forgiving. But it's so depressing trying to fit into a community and be constantly rejected. I'm giving up. You can have this account blocked forever. You can block my email, my IP address. You can cut off my fingers and pull my eyes out of their sockets. I'm done trying to fit into a community filled with this attitude of working against each other rather than working together. Thank you all for your help. I'm so sorry for wasting your time. :( --CityMorgue (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I take back all my good faiths on you. Just now found that you created a new account and tried to post the same content on the Lady Gaga talk page. Moderating admin, please see Special:Contributions/Americanogypsy. Sorry Justinboyer, you kinda kicked yourself to the heel with this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I swear I have not created a new account and have not edited Wikipedia since my block. I have no intentions of coming back to Wikipedia as a contributor. There must be a way to prove that that account is not me. 😞 _CityMorgue (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I guess I'm being ignored. The usual. I just want to be clear that I did NOT create another account, Americanogypsy. How stupid do you think I am? Edit the page I got blocked because of? As if. And besides, I've given up on Wikipedia because of the all the stick up their ass contributors who are so power hungry they can't even give a guy a chance to explain himself, and once he does they completely ignore the facts because it proves that they're wrong and God forbid that the power hungry contributor is ever wrong. Don't worry, I won't message you again. I just wanted to make it clear that I have not created another sockpuppet account. I didn't even know that this account, CityMorgue, would be considered that. I wouldn't have even done it if I had thought it was against the rules. I'm done now. Adios. _CityMorgue (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

CityMorgue, you can still appeal the block and explain all the questions they ask. You seem like an honest person, so I'm taking the faith on you and asking you to appeal again. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Second and final block appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my second attempt to appeal the blocking of my account, CityMorgue. Don't worry, if this request is also denied I won't bother the administrators again. I'd like to explain the situation as I understand it, please bear with me.

I once had an account on Wikipedia (Justinboyer), and I was still new and learning the ropes about contributing. I uploaded copyrighted material without the proper authorization and it resulted my original account being blocked. I still wanted to edit and contribute to Wikipedia, so after educating myself on the proper ways to upload media, I started this new account (CityMorgue). I had no idea this action was called "sockpuppetry" and that it was forbidden on Wikipedia. I just wanted to make productive contributions to improve the reader's experience on Wikipedia. I even mention my original account on the user page of this account, something I would not have done if I was knowingly disobeying the rules. It was not my intention to fool anyone and to continue making negative edits. And I will argue that my edits on this account have been nothing but honorable. Every image I have uploaded was done correctly with the appropriate rights and all my edits were researched, informed, and well-written.

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will continue to make productive contributions to Wikipedia.

I do not feel that this appeal needs to be directed at my original account, Justinboyer, because I did not create CityMorgue to hide my identity or evade my block. I simply created CityMorgue as a new account for the purpose of contributing positive, productive research to Wikipedia. It is my only wish to be able to continue editing with this account and to be welcomed back into this community, that I hold a lot of respect for. Thank you, I appreciate your time and any attempts to help me. _CityMorgue (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on what you're saying, this is the sock puppet account, and the other account is your main account. Accordingly, this account isn't going to be unblocked, while a WP:STANDARD OFFER approach could be taken on the main account. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2014 (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.

@PhilKnight: But I don't care about my original Justinboyer account. I was not intentionally making a sockpuppet account. If I were to continue editing, I would want to do it with this account. My edits on this account have been by the rule book. Please look! Please know that this account was not created as an attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or violate the community standards and policies. I have been a productive contributor, only making edits when beneficial to the readers of Wikipedia. Please. Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to look over my block. Thank you. @citymorgue 14:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Adios

@IndianBio: Thank you so much for having faith in me. I didn't mean to start an editing war over the Lady Gaga image. And I'm really devastated that it has resulted in this account being blocked forever. I put in an appeal on my Justinboyer account, even though I have no interest in editing from there. But it seems like that appeal is being ignored. The administrator who blocked it years ago hasn't been active on Wikipedia in a month so I doubt anyone will get around to dealing with it. Anyway, I just wanted to again apologize for the inconveniences I have caused and appreciate your support this week. I wish it would have ended differently. It was fun being a contributor. Wish I could have done more. @citymorgue 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Good bye CityMorgue. You are always free to Wiki-email me. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

(See the previous unblock requests here and on User talk:Justinboyer)

Accept reason:

After discussing with Courcelles who places the original CU-block on Justinboyer, I will accept to unblock you, because while continuing to edit under a new account after the block was definitely against policy, we acknowledge the fact that, since then, your edits have been generally constructive. Since I accept to unblock you, I think it's only fair that you should be able to choose which account to keep, so I am unblocking this one and not the former one. I also hope IndianBio will accept to mentor you, as he proposed above. Thank you for your continued contributions, and I hope you will continue improving Wikipedia! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Salvidrim!:, and welcome back CityMorgue. Heres to hoping leaving the past behind and a new era of editing. I will keep you under mentorship as proposed in the Justinboyer talk page. Salvdrim! are there any ground rules that you would like to suggest? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you all so much: Salvidrim!, Courcelles, IndianBio. I'm so grateful to you guys for taking the time to help me and giving me another chance. I wasn't sure if I'd ever get unblocked and this is just a great surprise. A zillion thanks! I'll be on my best behavior :) @citymorgue 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

CityMorgue, consult me for the edits that you want to do. Since I have accepted to mentor you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You got it, IndianBio! Thank you so much for offering to be my mentor, I have so much respect for you, it means so much to me. Thank you thank you! @citymorgue 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit consultations

Hey IndianBio, I visited Palm Springs this weekend and stopped by the Cabazon Dinosaurs. I uploaded images I took to Wikimedia Commons and wanted to get your opinion on adding them to the Cabazon Dinosaurs page. Let me know what you think. Thanks! #1, #2, #3, #4 @citymorgue 21:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Hello, I would like to add some images I took to the Cabazon Dinosaurs article. Would like your opinion and advice and consultation as we discussed for my unblocked privileges. I have provided links to the images I took in the previous message. Let me know how they compare to the images that already exist on the Cabazon Dinosaurs page and if you think they would be appropriate to include in the article. Thanks! :) @citymorgue 04:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello CM, sorry for the late reply. Yes they look fine to me and with proper license. So go ahead :). —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dark Blood.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dark Blood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Versace logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Versace logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)