User talk:ComputerGeek3000

CheckUser evidence confirms that the owner of this account has abusively used multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Welcome!

Hello, ComputerGeek3000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Kanye West does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please use an edit summary before saving your changes to an article, as you did not to Tupac Shakur It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. When a major edit (e.g. several revisions to text) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Meek Mill, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Meek Mill, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Citing a source for a birth date is only helpful if the cite actually gives that date. SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image you added to Aaliyah is copyrighted and needs permission from the copyright holder (i.e. publisher/author, in this case this site, which in turn credits WENN.com at the bottom right corner of the image) before it can be used for free. As it says at the image page's licensing section: "Please check the source to verify that this is correct. In particular, note that publication on the Internet, like publication by any other means, does not in itself imply permission to redistribute." Please do not restore the image. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantely your image was deleted a minute ago, with the reason available at the image page I linked in my previous message here. Dan56 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing pattern, particularly to Aaliyah, indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, perhaps ComputerGeek3000 who vandalized and overwrote a free Commons image with these edits, which you subsequently changed the caption for it here, a reoccurring vandalism to Aaliyah. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to File:Aaliyah at the 2000 MTV Movie Awards.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. - Jeremy (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2012 (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).

ComputerGeek3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make useful contributions instead, also I will follow and obey all Wikipedia rules, and be a good editor to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

You have not demonstrated at all that you understand why you are blocked, you obviously just copied the boilerplate from a declined unblock request and tried to pass it off as your own reason to be unblocked, which is exactly the type of behavior that led to being blocked in the first place. Consider this your last chance to show some actual understanding of the situation. If you can't or won't do that you can expect to have your ability to appeal the block revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2012 (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.

Note for admin reviewing block

This Commons user, editing at Wikipedia as 69.209.194.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is very likely the same person as ComputerGeek3000, and was blocked just yesterday for uploading multiple copyright violations despite warnings—the same activities as got ComputerGeek3000 blocked both here and at the Commons in the first place.—Jeremy (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non free images

Non-free images can never be used in the infobox of living people. It violates WP:NFCC#1, as the image is inherently replaceable. If you continue to insert them there, your block for improper image use will be resinstated.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Keke Palmer @ Alex Cross premiere.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Keke Palmer @ Alex Cross premiere.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a media file with false or missing copyright or source information, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to my fellow administrator who left the warning above the block notice, this user just came off a one month block for copyright violations and went straight back to ignoring copyright upon their return so i see no need to go through the formality of warning them, they have already been warned and blocked for the same behavior and continue to choose to violate copyrights. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are aware of the block. I also see that up until this point you have completely avoided any meaningful conversation with other users. This is a collaborative project, communication is a required facet of it. So, if you would like to have a discussion at this point about why you are blocked and how you might be able to get unblocked now would be a good time to speak up. Please note that just saying "I know what I did and I won't do it again" is not going to be sufficient. You said that last time you were blocked and it was obviously untrue. You need to demonstrate that you truly understand what copyright is and the scope of Wikipedia's standards with regard to it. A commitment not to upload any images for a while until it is clear you can edit without violating copyright at all would also be helpful to your cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has suggested [1] that you were in fact being responsive to the concerns raised and the block may be a bit premature. I am going to go ahead and unblock you in the hope that they are correct. I sincerely hope you will restrain yourself from uploading any more images unless and until you are sure you understand at least the basics of copyright and standards of fair use. If you have questions the best way to find answers is to ask somebody for help either by posting at WP:IMAGEHELP or by adding the {{helpme}} template to this page with your question beneath it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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. Jeremy (talk) 20:42, 8 January 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).

ComputerGeek3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me one more chance because I wanna do it right this time, I know that JeremyA warned me a lot of times not to violate copyright policy on Wikipedia and I disobeyed him but I read the Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Non-free content project pages and I fully understand the copyright policy now and I won't violate copyright policy on Wikipedia again and I can prove that I can edit without violating copyright policy meaning I will not upload no more images on Wikipedia, so I hope an administrator will accept this request and decide to unblock me.

Decline reason:

You've already been blocked for this three times, I see no reason to trust you this time. I suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia under the conditions mentioned in Wikipedia:Standard offer and then try again. Bjelleklang - talk 21:46, 9 January 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.

Third 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).

ComputerGeek3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK I wanna try this again, Because I am sorry for what I did because I know what I did was wrong and I won't do it again and I apologize to JeremyA and I also apologize to every other user who had to warn me not to violate copyright policy on Wikipedia, any administrator can decline this request if they want but I am showing everyone on Wikipedia how sorry I am for violating copyright policy and I won't do it again and nothing can be better than to apologize to the ones who had to deal with me about the situation over and over again! I'm sorry Wikipedia, JeremyA, and everyone else. Have a good day and respond to this appeal.

Decline reason:

I do not believe you have read WP:OFFER yet - you need to go away from the English Wikipedia for 6 months, and it's recommended that you go and do some good work on another Wikimedia project before returning, so that you can prove to us that you KNOW both the policy AND the danger you put this project in. Originally, this meant that we would see you July 8 ... since you seem to have issues reading at least WP:OFFER, it looks like we now mean July 28. We're being very lenient with you - do not force me to lock this talkpage for the next 6 months (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:05, 28 January 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.

User trying to edit admin's comments

The user tried a little earlier to edit the admin's comments. I have reverted this attempt, but I would suggest that in view of this user's continual failure to meet the terms of WP:OFFER the community ought to extend the standard minimum 6 month period for every subsequent offence. Perhaps 7 months minimum now, and extend for each later offence? - David Biddulph (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user continues to repeatedly evade block by editing logged out. The clock for WP:OFFER should once again be reset. IPs linked to this user are dynamic, but those with recent use include: