User talk:Wudumindif

July 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wudumindif for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Northlane

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 Northlane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blink-182 - Blink-182 cover.jpg

It appears that while trying to upload a new version of File:Blink-182 - Blink-182 cover.jpg, you weren't seeing your new version reflected on the image page. I'm guessing that's why you tried uploading your new version 3 times in a row, then gave up and uploaded it as File:Blink182album.jp‎g instead. What likely happened is that your internet browser was showing you a cached version of the image rather than the new version you'd uploaded. All you have to do is hit "refresh" on your browser and you should see that your new version did, in fact, supplant the old one. The current version of File:Blink-182 - Blink-182 cover.jpg is the one you uploaded, with the slightly longer blue stripe, and I have tagged it so the previous versions will be deleted. File:Blink182album.jpg‎ is therefore redundant and will be deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorillazfour.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gorillazfour.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ed Case (musician)

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 Ed Case (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bgwhite (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rise of the Ogre, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Story of the Year discography

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Story of the Year discography, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mtv.com/artists/story-of-the-year/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is an error because I copied (or moved) from the Story of the Years page to its own discography page. --Wudumindif (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon review it was because the bio (probably from the main article) was taken from that MTV site and only trivially reworded. I have removed it. It can be rewritten if you wish, but if you don't, my understanding is that a bio of that length may not be necessary on a discography page as long as it links back to the main article. Thanks, — madman 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Williams image

I actually removed the speedy deletion tag. A high quality image shot close to the stage looks as if it's going to be pirated from a commercial site, and the tagger presumably worked on that premise. I removed the tag because the allegation couldn't be supported. My reservation was based on the absence of metadata, but I assumed good faith anyway. Take it as a compliment on your photographic skills, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (4 (The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus album)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 4 (The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus album), Wudumindif!

Wikipedia editor Upjav just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for add this article to Wikipedia! If you need any help expanding your article, let me know.

To reply, leave a comment on Upjav's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal to my edit block. Even though I have used multiple accounts; however, I do believe my edits were constructive. If you have a look at my contributions. I do not make any vandalism. Usage of multiple accounts will not happen again. Wudumindif (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of accounts that you have created. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (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.

I'm sorry, how does "the edits by my illegal accounts were constructive" help to outweigh anything? the panda ₯’ 10:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PhilKnight - The accounts I have used are, this one (Wudumindif), and cumallover you. The reason why I created cumalloveryou was to test if people see me as a vandal (due to the name), or not, while still making constructive edit. And I have made constructive edits. Yes, I appeal to that, and won't be using multiple accounts and/or inappropriate username(s).

Response to DangerousPanda - I have never said anything about illegal accounts, as you have quoted. I don't know what you mean...

Wudumindif (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are others. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Please name the other accounts, thank you. --Wudumindif (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WomenAreToolsForMenToUse (talk · contribs) and Womenaretoolsformentouse (talk · contribs) are examples of accounts you have created. PhilKnight (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? I had a look at the user contributes, and they are not the pages I edit. However, I do live in a dorm in a university, which possibly uses shared IP? ¿Would you mind if? ₪ ø lll ·o. 06:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser information indicates that a technical connection between the accounts is

Likely, and in addition, the accounts have unacceptable names, but don't vandalize, which fits your own description. In this context, I'm confident that you created these accounts. And no, I don't believe your explanation, as it doesn't explain why the accounts fit the pattern of having unacceptable names, but make good edits. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your conclusion, much appreciate it. I shall take full responsibility of the like hood, and I shall only edit on "this" account from now on. As I have mentioned above, I was only experimenting, and now am clear having multiple accounts is not allowed. ¿Would you mind if? ₪ ø lll ·o. 00:55, 19 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to send a second request to my block appeal. The reason is the same reason as above. Please read the previous appeal, and the full talk above before making the decision, thank you. ¿Would you mind if? ₪ ø lll ·o. 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the evidence from Jpgordon and PhilKnight, I feel like there is more going on here than you're admitting to. I'm declining because we're not a place to allow for you to run a social experiment or purposefully attempt to test our rules. only (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2014 (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.

File permission problem with File:Williams2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Williams2013.jpg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 30 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]