User talk:BuickCenturyDriver

Archives 1st Archive - January 10, 2007 - February 19, 2007 2nd Archive - February 20, 2007 - February 28, 2007 3rd Archive - March 2007 4th Archive - April 2007 5th Archive - May 2, 2007 - May 10, 2007 6th Archive - May 10, 2007 - July 19, 2009 7th Archive - September 2, 2009 - April 30, 2011 8th Archive - April 30, 2011 - December 31, 2012

Image copyright problem with 2001 New York License Plate.jpg & NYPlates.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg.
Thank you for uploading File:NYPlates.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:NYPlates.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NYPlates.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) 12:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2001 New York License Plate.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) 14:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

James Knowles (footballer) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Knowles (footballer). Since you had some involvement with the James Knowles (footballer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Peter James (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: 1978 American League East tie-breaker game

It seems that you have confused two different things. What I did was promote it to Good Topic status. The articles been a Good Article since 2012. GamerPro64 14:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2012 Texas License Plate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2012 Texas License Plate.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) 01:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock reviewing

Hello BCD. I noticed you've been attempting to review some unblock appeals lately; please note that while you can comment on these appeals, you should not be making any changes to the unblock template itself, including placing appeals on hold. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nor should you make any promises or committments which you are unable to fulfil. An unblock for username change is not an automatic right, and the decision as to allow it or not is for admins only to make. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I though that successful user renames requests cause an admin to unblock the account, but if you say so then I'll leave the unblocking to you. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I struck out the promise for a quick unblock.[1]. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you review unblock requests without being an administrator, you will get yourself in all manners of trouble. So, I would suggest that you don't. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

To echo the above, you are welcome to comment with relevant information, but making statements such as this (especially when they alter the unblock template in a manner that is not consistent with its usage) is neither appropriate nor necessary. Thank you. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Accountcreator flag

Hello BuickCenturyDriver. I hope stwalkerster won't mind, but I'd like to take a moment to respond on his behalf as an administrator of the WP:ACC project myself. To be honest, your reason for requesting the flag in the first place ([2]) combined with what you said above about getting "awarded" the ACC flag makes us look negatively on your request to join ACC. As ST noted in his decline of your permissions request, the accountcreator flag is specifically and only for those who assist in the account creation process or otherwise need to create a lot of user accounts. If you were to, say, join ACC for the sole purpose of being able to edit editnotices - so you're active for a while then stop - you would get suspended for inactivity from ACC and have your accountcreator flag revoked. Being able to edit editnotices is a side-effect of being able to override the username blacklist (actually, the title blacklist), nothing more, and the flag is treated accordingly. In addition, even joining ACC is no guarantee that the flag will be granted; granting of the accountcreator flag is still at administrators' discretion, but you must at least either be a member of ACC or in a special program that requires you to create more accounts than normally allowed by the rate-limiter to be eligible for the flag.

If you are genuinely interested in working with ACC, I'd suggest waiting a while (more than a week; maybe a month or two) before you try to re-apply, as if you were to now, we would likely decline your request as an attempt to gain the flag for reasons other than assisting at ACC. In addition, you are not identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. We require all prospective and current ACC member to identify to the WMF, like CheckUsers and Oversighters are required to, because of the private data we handle there. To identify (summed up), you must submit proof of your real-life identity to the WMF. The details of the process are explained here. Your request to join will not be considered or discussed internally until you've identified; likewise, if you are unable to identify or unwilling to identify, you cannot join ACC. There are other factors involved when we consider requests to join ACC, such as how well your grasp of Wikipedia policy is perceived, previous blocks, and such. If you are genuinely interested in assisting us at Account Creation, please first read the ACC Guide to see what's involved, then identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, then reapply to join ACC by sending an email to the Accounts Creation mailing list at [email protected]. However, if your primary goal is to get the account creator flag as opposed to helping out at account creation, be advised that getting approved to join ACC is no guarantee that you will be granted the flag, and certainly not for a while after you join.

If you have any further questions about what I've written here or about the ACC application process, feel free to ask stwalkerster, myself, or any of the otherACC admins. Sincerely, FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 10:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I though people who volunteer for this activity create accounts using the Userlogin interface. That's the way it was a few years ago. I wasn't aware of this new software or the like. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin reponsibilities

Hi there; i propose to give you some (possibly) unwanted guidance. Please bear in mind that in doing so I have been here for nearly seven years, and an admin for almost six.

You are obviously reasonably knowledgeable in the ways of wikipedia, and are equally obviously eager to play a full part, not only in straightforward article creation but also in vandal-control and in policing the encyclopedia. This is welcome, without qualification. But there are, as a non-admin editor, boundaries which you must not cross. Now some actions usually performed by admins can be performed by non-admins; some AfD closures, for example. But there are a number of actions which only admins can do, and a non-admin really should not promise events which a non-admin cannot deliver. I realise that you have the interests of the project at heart, and I am confident that in the fullness of time you will become an admin, or higher if you wish. I earnestly suggest that you do not wreck your chances by getting blocked for overstepping the line. This is not a warning in any sense, merely what I hope is sensible advice. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even after all this time I still do not always capitalise "I"s!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I really have been considering another RFA and one of the tasks that I intend to do is help handle unblock requests. As you can see from my contibution history, I tried but my a couple of sysops got annoyed from this edit and I decided it's best to leave them alone. As for closing AFDs (right now I only vote but very rarely close them), I'd probably handle the obvious "close as delete" ones. However, before I run I am going to ask a few editors that know me well if the time is right or if I should wait a few more months. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as an outside set of eyes, the recent series of unblock reviews probably set you back at least 6 months - that's a policy that's inflexible, especially when the templates clearly state "for admins only". Also, if you're ready then a few admins will tell you - you'll never need to ask (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ace of spades.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ace of spades.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. LGA _talk^edits 23:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:CardSharkCardBack.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CardSharkCardBack.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. LGA _talk^edits 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 23:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA _talk^edits 23:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:BlackJack2.JPG

Files that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackJack2.JPG, File:BlackJackInsurance.JPG, File:Soft17.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. LGA _talk^edits 23:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA _talk^edits 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA _talk^edits 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Files

Files that you uploaded or altered, File:KlondikeSolitaire.JPG, File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA _talk^edits 00:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Empire License Plate.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New York Empire License Plate.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. LGA _talk^edits 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, 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. LGA _talk^edits 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 3.
Message added 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA _talk^edits 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Review your uploads

I have been reviewing your uploads. Can you confirm that you actually took the following photos and did not use or edit ones you had found :

• File:Giants Champs Trailer.jpg
• File:Inside Redbox.jpg]
• File:LunaParkConeyIsland.JPG
• File:Buick Century 4.JPG
• File:BuickCenturyDriver.jpg

With regard to :

• File:Njtp.JPG

Can you have a look at the Licence, as I doubt very much you actually created it, it looks like a derivative work. LGA _talk^edits 07:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Following section copied from my talk page so as to keep this in one place, see this edit for proof.

To answer your question regarding the images I uploaded:

• File:Giants Champs Trailer.jpg - I actually took this photo.
• File:Inside Redbox.jpg] - I actually took this photo.
• File:LunaParkConeyIsland.JPG - I actually took this photo.
• File:Buick Century 4.JPG - I actually took this photo.
• File:BuickCenturyDriver.jpg - I actually took this photo.
• File:Njtp.JPG - I scanned this ticket. It is from the New Jersey Turnpike.

–BuickCenturyDriver 07:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In which case can you change the licence on File:Njtp.JPG as you can not licence it cc-by-sa, it needs to be one of Fair-use. LGA _talk^edits 07:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Playing cards

Can you also confirm which of the playing card images contain your own designs, any cards you purchased or obtained are likely copyrighted designs on the backs and on any picture card. LGA _talk^edits 07:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The playing cards I used in my uploads were given to me for free from various casinos and and Solitaire photo uses bicycle cards. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you cant licence them CC-BY-SA as you do not own the copyright on the backs of the card nor the picture cards, and they fail the WP:NFCC rules as they can be replaced by free designs. LGA _talk^edits 07:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have any free playing card designs then show me and I will re-upload the card images. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't but the point is they can be created. LGA _talk^edits 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per checkuser evidence. 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.  Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the SPI case is here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed both DeltaQuad and Hersfold. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have too many good contributions to Wikipedia and I think I deserve a second chance. I've personally emailed Hersfold with a request. If I am unblocked I will use only this name. I'm not ready to walk away quit using WP just yet.–BuickCenturyDriver 06:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As this block was conducted with CheckUser evidence, only CUs can give permission to unblock. Rschen7754 08:23, 4 March 2013 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As I stated above, I have emailed CU editor DeltaQuad & Hersfold and they're handling this request by email. please leave this open. Thank you. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your assumption is incorrect; the fact that you have emailed me does not mean that I am handling this by email; as a matter of personal policy, I will not unless there is some specific reason why the review cannot be handled in public. I do not see such a reason here.

You have now admitted to the other three accounts by email, however you still do not seem to realize why you were blocked. It is legitimate to have a single additional account to edit when on a public computer or similar - the account I'm using now is a prime example - however, such accounts should in general be publicly declared, and you only need one for that purpose. Even then, these accounts must not be used to vote multiple times in deletion debates, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira. It is expressly forbidden for undisclosed accounts to be editing anywhere in project-space, and at deletion debates in particular. On top of all of this, you have attempted to keep up the appearance that you were separate people up until you were blocked. Such deception is unacceptable, particularly in the light of the fact that DeltaQuad told you outright that coming clean before a block was placed would have made things much easier. That time has passed. If you wish to return to editing, then we will need a full, reasonable explanation as to why you had these other accounts, why you attempted to deceive the community when confronted about the accounts, and you will need to agree to a restriction to use a single account from this point forward.

Administrators are free to lift this block on their own if they believe these conditions have been met, but should still first consult a checkuser to ensure that no other accounts have appeared in the meantime. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (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.

• You still have yet to either admit that 1) the three other accounts are your socks or 2) provide a decent explanation as to why this is going on when I gave you direct evidence that your editing was very close together. Also, in our email exchanges, at points the information you were trying to give me was very contradictory to what was actually going on. You also neglected to inform me of the part of the data that would have caught you socking, but told me everything else. So you have given me no reason to consider unblocking you at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Delta, I just replied to you by email. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have read Hersfold's comments above and I agree to edit using this name only going forward. The other names were meant to used when I was away from home. I apologize for causing the commotion on Hurricanekira'a AFD. I did think it would lead to this. I hope we can put this all major setback behind us and move on. I have made plenty of good contributions and I intend to make more constructive edits if given another chance. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no recognition of the problems - only being embarassed that they got caught. This is unacceptable. For someone who feels themself to be admin-category material in terms of knowledge, these actions and the sheer inability to follow WP:GAB, plus the desire to hide the evidence by trying to become unblocked in private via e-mail is just ... unbelievable. Here's a recommendation: go away for at least a week. Don't even read Wikipedia. In a week, come back and review WP:SOCK, WP:GAB. After that, take a few days to compose yourself and an unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (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.

That's not satisfactory. As I said above, "I had this account to edit when away from home" explains one account, not three. Why did you have three? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And you also haven't addressed "why you attempted to deceive the community when confronted about the accounts". Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I was reluctant to say it at first fearing you would block me if I told you outright and therefore tried to pinpoint the edits in question. The account were not intended to be used maliciously but intended to edit tv show articles. Had DQ showed me the edits in question I would have told them the edits are mine. Now that it has passed it doesn't mean I should be deprived of a we one chance given my long history of constructed editing. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)