User talk:Raincrowd

License tagging for File:INTROVOYSGroupShotBW.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:INTROVOYSGroupShotBW.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CHOT2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:CHOT2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bluemask (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:CHOT ULEP.png

Thanks for uploading File:CHOT ULEP.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CHOT_ULEP.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:CHOT_ULEP.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bluemask (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:INTROVOYS 2009.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:INTROVOYS 2009.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CHOT_ULEP.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:CHOT_ULEP.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bluemask (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:CHOT ULEP.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CHOT ULEP.png, 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. --–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Raincrowd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

by different managers. Some of these were husband and wife team, Kim and Francis Marcelo, Sazi (an independent artist who help fuel the [[Pinoy Rock]] scene, and one of [[True_Faith_(band)|True

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) You Got it![reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Scalar Analysis (Finance) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scalar Analysis (Finance) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar Analysis (Finance) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Ramoncito Ulep. I am the individual who created the topic "Scalar Analysis (Finance)". I created it because it is a publication I made. Albeit self-published, I was assuming that because Wikipedia has accepted my notable contributions to the music industry in the Philippines and included my own name as a Wikipedia topic, the organization would also recognize my published work citing Wikipedia itself as a "reliable source" of reference.

Well, you are super wrong in all those assumptions. In fact, it is likely that the article you wrote about how awesome you are will also be deleted. And Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source but even if it could it seems like you are only here to write about yourself, which is not really the point of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I write about my achievements because my assumption was Wikipedia wants something "notable" so it could be included as an article. How else would I write it then? --2601:C:4D80:A6:F5B5:EA9B:15B0:2A38 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

Doesn't this topic apply to my assumption that Wikipedia, itself, can be a "reliable source" - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source Raincrowd (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

unblock-un

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

rdulep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

individual, not group Raincrowd (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From the conversation below, it appears that you are still confused on copyright issues, making an unblock a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Raincrowd has been trying to promote the band (Raincrowd) and Chot Ulep. Note that the new user name he has selected is Ulep's name abbreviated ("born as Ramoncito Dayawon Ulep").--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would be permitted regardless under WP:REALNAME. Instead ...

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these principles and have applied them in the past in every single topic I added to Wikipedia. I thought I wrote everything in accordance to Wikipedia's policies. If you can pinpoint which specific phrases or sentences violate Wikipedia's policies, I can change them to fit in as qualified articles. As far as COI is concerned, I can ask one of my publishers to re-write the articles for me but I don't think there would be any substantial change in the articles. Raincrowd (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

I would like to add this screenshot image as a reliable source for "Chot Ulep", "Raincrowd" and "Introvoys": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INTROVOYS_-_MANILA_BULLETIN_-_01032007.jpg Raincrowd (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

I would also like to add this scanned news article from Balita, a Filipino-American newspaper in the United States, as a reliable source for "Chot Ulep", "Raincrowd" and "Introvoys": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Introvoys_article_at_Balita_on_December_16,_2006.jpg Raincrowd (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

I would also like to add this screenshot image of an interview at LA18.tv, an Asian television network in Los Angeles, CA, as a reliable source for "Chot Ulep", "Raincrowd" and "Introvoys": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INTROVOYS_AT_LA18_ON_01142007.jpg Raincrowd (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

Adding image of Introvoys with Chot Ulep, attending apl.de.ap's birthday in Hollywood, CA on December 2006, as a reliable source for "Chot Ulep", "Raincrowd" and "Introvoys": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INTROVOYS_AT_APL_DE_AP_BDAY.jpg Raincrowd (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

Thank you for providing a road map of the copyright violations you have been uploading at commons. I would strongly suggest that you slow down and take some time to try and understand the rules around here. Despite having had an account for some time you do not seem at all to grasp some of the most basic things about what Wikipedia is and how it works, or what is and is not a free image which you can upload at commons. Below are some pages you should probably read:

how to cite a source
the definition of a reliable source
editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest
creating autobiographies
what is a copyright violation?
Wikipedia's definition of notability
notability is not inherited, like as in a subject is not automatically notable just because it is related to you

I have also asked for an admin at commns to speak to you over there abut what you can and cannot upload. For example, taking a scan of a newspaper article and uploading it and labeling it as your own work is a copyright violation. You did not create the article, just took a scan of it. The rights are not yours to release. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is exactly why I did not want to cite some of these files as references because of copyright issues. However, without these files, you wouldn't find any other reliable sources on the internet because of the fact that these references were available either BEFORE the internet became popular or BEFORE the specific reference re-constructed their website and deleted the pages where these topics are present. It seems that most Wikipedia admins assume that "because it's not on the internet, it must be non-notable." Just like when you did a "bit of search" on the article "Introvoys" and did not come up with any reliable source. I have no intention of becoming an admin here, nor do I want to spend a lot of time logging in. I just want to provide truthful information on topics that I know, such as myself and the people that deserve credit on sites like Wikipedia, which claims itself as a good source of information, even if the admins do not publish their own credibility or achievements. 2601:C:4D80:A6:94C:3648:79F9:EF75 (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

It's bad enough that you are not logging into your account to edit on your talk page, where you are still permitted to edit, but you are using this IP and another IP to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have now blocked both IP addresses for a week for block evasion. If you continue to do that, you may never be permitted to change your user name or edit again at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you propose I answer to an argument when I'm blocked? Doesn't that seem unfair? I've asked questions here that, if not ignored, were completely deleted, albeit legitimate. Unfortunately, this is the true nature of Wikipedia and I'm completely dismayed that an organization claiming itself as "scholarly" is being partially run by what seems like uneducated users without regard for truthful information. Nor do they have the courage to show their resumes, not to mention a minimum capacity to show decency and respect to other users, and to the real meaning of arguments and debates. With this unfair trial, I would have to respectfully concede defeat as I have but very little time for these things. Please delete my entries as soon as possible. It was a profound mistake I made signing up as a user, but it definitely was quite a valuable experience which I can share to everyone in my circle. All articles I contributed shall now be considered copyrighted material under my company and will be treated as such. Good luck and best regards to all. 68.38.235.246 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

I've blocked this IP as well. You don't get an opportunity to "answer" arguments, although it's possible that if you were to log in, edit this talk page as yourself, and ask for a comment to be put on a particular page, another editor might do it for you. That normally happens when an editor is blocked and is being discussed on an administrative noticeboard. I personally have never seen it done with respect to AfDs. I've blocked this IP as well. Frankly, it's not up to me whether to grant your user name change request, but I don't see that you have any interest in Wikipedia except for promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Roy Alvarez

The article Roy Alvarez has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've added these as references, thank you: http://www.fandango.com/royalvarez/overview/p1261 and http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2013/08/21/1114181/dangerous-life-revisited.Raincrowd (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Raincrowdundertheweather.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raincrowdundertheweather.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:INTROVOYSGroupShotBW.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:INTROVOYSGroupShotBW.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]