User talk:Nabaker

Welcome

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Nabaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that you have an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that:

Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
Most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
Freely-licensed images may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images, from where they can be used on Wikipedia and many other wikis?
We recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nabaker, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nabaker! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Articles for creation/Alchemy Arms Spectre

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Oo7565 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

UTAS UTS-15 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to 12 gauge and 12 Gauge

Ruger XGI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Semi-automatic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: I have fixed the disambiguation links for these two articles.

FN FAL

I have reverted your change of image in the infobox on FN FAL since your image seems to be a copyright violation, and has been reported as such on Commons. Thomas.W (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: My image is not a copyright violation, and if it has been reported on the Wikipedia Commons, I have yet to see it, and it would only have been because of you reporting it yourself. I have removed your edit.

I have checked one more of your images on Commons, of a Colt 1905 revolver, and that one was also a blatant copyright violation (a composite of images found here, downloaded using an application such as Image Downloader plugin for Google Chrome to evade the watermark). I intend to go through every one of your images on Commons, and your edits here on en-WP, because Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Thomas.W (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: I used no such "application" to avoid any watermarks, and that is not the correct origin of that particular image. The majority of my images are composites of one or more images that have been cropped, color-changed, partitioned, rotated, and in other ways altered. They are not stolen in any way shape or form, nor was I attempting to steal credit, as I made all the images myself. I understand that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, yet I do not believe that is what these are. I look forward to your findings, which I presume you will submit to the moderators of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons in an unbiased fashion, for their determination. At this point, it seems you are simply a simple contributor, like myself, who just doesn't want their "thunder" stolen.

The images I've looked at definitely come from Rockisland Auctions/Gun-photos.info. There's absolutely no doubt about that (they're 100% identical), so the only way you could be the creator, as you claim on Commons, is if you took the pictures for Rockisland, which you will have to prove. Thomas.W (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: I look forward to your attempts to track down the origins of each of my uploaded images. You will be disappointed.

There's a case like this about once a week, so I've done it a few times. And I'm good at it. BTW I just happened to find "your" L42A1 picture too on Gun-photos.info. What a coincidence. Thomas.W (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF-EDIT: Once again, not the origin. Since you seem experienced with this, hopefully it will be done quickly.

I've just taken a look at "your" picture of the Akdal MKA-1919 shotgun and found that to be a copyvio too, with the two parts of it available on a large number of different sites, making it very improbable that it really is your picture. So why don't you just go to Commons and ask the people on the administrator's noticeboard to delete your copyvios? Because coming clean might save you from being blocked for it. Thomas.W (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: I don't get "coming clean"? I've said that most of these are composite and edited images from various online sources from the beginning. To quote: "The majority of my images are composites of one or more images that have been cropped, color-changed, partitioned, rotated, and in other ways altered." I have done nothing wrong in my mind, these images were made by myself, and I was in no way attempting to steal credit. There are exceptions, such as images of the Alchemy Arms Spectre, which I have full rights to, as well as the Ruger XGI, which I was given permission to share, the Deerfield Carbine, which I pieced together from about 5 different images, etc.. If this is copyright infringement by Wikipedia's standards, I would disagree, but so be it. If the administrators ask me to detail the images origins as well as my countless edits, I would not be against doing so. As for being "blocked", that doesn't really matter to me. I've contributed quite a bit of information and will continue to do so long as I am allowed. As of now, this seems like a witch-hunt done by yourself, being mad that I edited an article that you somehow cared deeply for. Once again, I look forward to the outcome of your actions.

You don't seem to get it. You can't just take "images from various online sources", make composites of them and then upload them as own images. That's copyright violation. Which can get you blocked, both on Commons and here. Thomas.W (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: You're right that I may not "get it", but what actions would you have me take? The images are quality profiles of both sides (with the exception of the Ruger XGI) of firearms. I made them as such because I personally believe they are the best visuals that can be provided for someone researching the particular firearm models. I uploaded them as my own work because they were my own work - I put work into them to make them the way they are. I'm also confused on what exactly you are doing here. You are obviously not an administrator, and I will definitely need to hear from one or someone of similar moderating authority before I take your word at editing any of my works, as well as a citation for how and why every single one of my works is a copyright violation. Hint - they're not.

June 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User_talk:Thomas.W. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: How about you not attack my work, then? I have full permission for every picture on the Alchemy Arms Spectre page, and you single-handedly railroaded them to deletion without any notification. You really want me to take legal action against you for this?

Administrator's Noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the discussion, and attempted to edit my personal response there, but it does not appear to be showing up. Am I not allowed to make edits to that particular discussion?

Here is the response I attempted to edit to the page:

"My (Nabaker) response: I have threatened legal action against user Thomas.W for his actions on a single one of my pages, Alchemy Arms Spectre. The page is entirely my own work, none of it is copyright infringement. You may ask the site administrator yourself to discover this. This user is railroading all my work on Wikipedia to speedy deletion without notification. I ask that my works on the one page, Alchemy Arms Spectre are restored immediately so that I am not forced to take legal measures."

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I don't understand this - I'm no longer allowed to edit on Wikipedia because my account has been "flagged" or whatnot? What would be the "proper channel" for un-deleting my images that this individual has committed his personal crusade against? What would be the "proper channel" for me to take legal action against them? Or am I supposed to take legal action against Wikipedia for his individual actions? This is unacceptable behavior done simply out of spite against myself. Since when did Wikipedia become a playground?

In simple word, making legal threats will make your account to be blocked easily. You can't say "I'm going to sue you" and expect no consecuences about it (also this is not legally possible). Consider your uploaded images were obtained from the net, how do you expect somebody trust you when you say "The owner give me the rights". For legal reasons we need evidence the copyright holder agreed their image to be used under Creative Commons or Public Domain licenses, is not as easy as say "He told me I can released for free", especially if the information you gave us was false. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically there's no acceptable way for me to "prove" to you that Mike gave me full rights to the images, short of taking hours to days out of my schedule to adhere to your overly strict rules? I'm fine with that, so long as, when I re-upload the exact same images, citing Mike as the creator, this user that has been railroading my work doesn't reattempt any childish BS. As a side note, insinuating that I've lied to you all (even after I've told you to contact Mike about this directly) is childish and there was no need for it - I have no qualms against you personally. I will be re-uploading the images with citation shortly. Nabaker (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELF EDIT: Noted. Nabaker (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Alchemy Arms Spectre. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this unbiased? Will you be banned from editing if you continue to undo my edits? My image gets deleted by a child and his friends come in to try and bury it - is that what this is? Nabaker (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

My contributions to Wikipedia were recently (in the past few hours) railroaded to speedy deletion by a single user, for no other foreseeable reason than spite. If it was mere appropriate citation on my part as their final goal, then they went about it in the wrong way by attempting to delete all my works. My legal threats were towards the individual after they had deleted images that were of my own work (I own full rights to the images). However, it seems that proof is still required even though I own full rights to these images, and I am in the process of providing the proof. After making this edit, I will attempt to provide the proper citation for the images. However, if my account is blocked, I may not be allowed to perform this action, and as such, a paradox is created. I ask that my account be un-blocked so that I may add the required citation to both the images and their corresponding articles. As for continuance of this legal situation, it would appear legal action is no longer required, as the user I had threatened with said action has ceased their crusade against me. I edit Wikipedia in the pursuit of spreading knowledge, and wish to continue this pursuit if at all possible. Thanks for your time and consideration. Nabaker (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is obvious you do not understand or wish to understand how Wikipedia works. Instead of trying to work with other editors you just turn on the bold text to try to intimidate them. Copyrights are very seriously handled - I guess we get about 5-10 images per day which have been copied from other web sites without permission, therefore any image that appears that is already on another web site will always get tagged as a copyvio - no exceptions unless the web site shows a proper CC license. You don't need to be unblocked to get permission - it's all done by e-mail, using the procedure at WP:DCM. I don't see anything here that suggests an unblock is appropriate. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:57, 5 June 2013 (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.

Before some other admin drops by, you'll want to rethink your comments above.

First, read WP:NOTTHEM - your unblock must address YOUR actions, nobody else's
Second, recognize that nobody was on a crusade against you - Wikipedia has VERY STRICT copyright requirements, and you were failing them miserably. When told to stop, you refused and became belligerent and abusive
Third, read WP:GAB
Fourth, read WP:COPYRIGHT - especially the big set of "welcome" links I just gave you at the top of this page
Fifth, if the "only reason" you're withdrawing your "threat" is because you believe someone has ceased a crusade that never existed, then it will not be sufficient (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overwhelmed with all the reading you just provided in addition to the citations I am organizing to provide for my images. As far as the 'official apology', it seems then I may not be able to continue here on Wikipedia. My actions for which I promptly received a block were done only after the other user in question attempted to delete basically half of everything I've contributed to this site. I now know that I had been failing to meet the proper, in-depth citation standards required of Wikipedia, but is the appropriate response for them to start deleting everything I've done because they had a temper tantrum? Will they not be held accountable for that? If yes, then I have no issue with reading your materials and making my block repeal proposal, claiming full responsibility for my actions and in a format that is correct "to a t". If not, then Wikipedia is not the place for me, much less anyone over the age of 14. Nabaker (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying I'm 40 ... haven't been blocked yet. Look at your own tantrum and legal threats before you start accusing others on this site of being immature. Look, we have a process for identifying images that you took by yourself or have the legal rights to - you need to formally release them to the project - that can take days to process. You have full directions above for doing so, and you do not need to be unblocked to do it. Every single editor has the REQUIREMENT to remove images that are improperly licensed - you went off and had a tantrum on someone who was simply doing what this project requires them to do in order to help prevent Wikipedia itself from being subject to legal action. Did you even stop to realize that the other person was doing the right thing? No - you got all self-righteous, even though you're utterly clueless about how this project needs to operate, and you outright refused the help you needed to actually do things right. You're correct: if you have no ability to listen to advice, then this project is quite likely not for you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less about your age, but very well. It seems I will not be able to continue here, then. Since I'm the childish one and what I offer is not in line with "this project", I imagine you'd get right on deleting everything I've done - to include the articles I've created? A recommendation, if I may: delete the Alchemy Arms Spectre page first. As I spent the most time (4 months) putting together that page, it must be chocked full of the most immature sentences you've ever read. I look forward to seeing you chicken out from that. I was willing to work alongside people who could appreciate when someone is trying to help them and could reciprocate, but that is obviously not what Wikipedia is. Have a good life.

You seem to the the one calling people children, and making dumbass comments about "anyone over age 14" - assuming everyone is a child certainly has not worked for you so far, has it? Here's an idea: go to bed - watch hockey, or something. Tomorrow, re-read everything YOU have posted here, as well as everything I have given you to assist you in becoming both a) unblocked and b) a better editor. I think you'll realize how your behaviour has led you to where you are, and just how much help at least a half-dozen folks have actually given you that you're just discarding. No - we won't delete your edits: you gave them to this project. Tomorrow morning, you'll face a new day, feel a bit sheepish, and you'll also be back to editing normally. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more essay to read: WP:GRIEF. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alchemy Arms Spectre

The article Alchemy Arms Spectre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. No non-primary sources. Orphaned for a decade.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PepperBeast (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]