User talk:SchoolcraftT

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ /−

Hello, SchoolcraftT!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Molohan Mill.JPG was uncategorized on 21 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Cemetary.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cemetary.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Cemetary.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Holly river.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Holly river.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Holly river.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Senior center.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Senior center.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Senior center.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Hacker Valley School.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hacker Valley School.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Hacker Valley School.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Upper falls.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Upper falls.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potato knob.jpg

File:Potato knob.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

--bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Potato knob.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Potato knob.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Potato knob.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Park Entrance.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Park Entrance.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

bmpowell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalism

SchoolcraftT, you must stop removing the tags from the images that I tagged for permissions issues and deletion review. Your behavior constitutes vandalism and is very likely to get you blocked here, just as you have been blocked from Wikipedia. bmpowell (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior doesn't constitute vandalism, but yours does. The permision information was already sent. Previous comment by SchoolcraftT

You need to start leaving comments with your edits for one so other editors have a clue what you're doing, Todd. Beyond that, there is a proper procedure to follow with submitting permissions and tagging your images; you didn't follow it. Read Commons:OTRS. An OTRS volunteer (i.e., not you) will mark the images once proper permission has been received and verified.

Your removal of tags pertaining to the deletion review on File:Potato knob.jpg was most definitely vandalism. This is an open discussion because of the continuing problems with your failure to follow Wikimedia copyright guidelines and specific problems with that image as noted in the deletion review. bmpowell (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Hanning Rocks.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ /−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hanning Rocks.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Hanning Rocks.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

bmpowell (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your comments

Please make sure that you properly sign all comments that you leave on talk pages. bmpowell (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from Commons for repeatedly uploading images without permission, and refusing to uphold our policies on copyright. You have been repeatedly warned and now indef blocked in the English Wikipedia for your licensing problems, and have received adequate warnings about your copyright violations here. —Dark ^talk 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UT

IF I hadn't gotten permission. than why would there be e-mail that I sent the day before stating that I had.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the permission e-mail needing to come from Stanley Anderson (and not you) do you not understand? How many ways do we have to keep telling you this? bmpowell (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This dose not excuse you from having me blocked for no reason whatsoever. Unsigned comment by SchoolcraftT

I wasn't the one who blocked you. An admin did who reviewed the situation and found that your actions were inappropriate. bmpowell (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "I had gotten permission from the copyright owner BEFORE any images were uploaded,and I sent a message to confirm the agreement. The copyright policies were upheld to the letter. Bmpowell lied when he cried foul. I just haven't put it in writing yet. They were given to me by Dr. Stanley Judd Anderson <removed>."

Decline reason: "I am not buying it. Some of your comments below contradict what you have said here. Sorry, you have shown a pattern of disruptive behavior on more than just this project. As such, this request is declined. (Also, please stop using IPs to sock). Tiptoety ^talk 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ /−

I hav been cotraidtory at times , but this is NOT one of em. The said comnmet was deleted by me becaues It was not nessessarily relevent at that time. It got reverted for NO reason what so ever. You shopun't use deleted comment against someone. I knew that someone would attack me, thats the reason it was deleted in the first place. Thus I resend any such statement. Another thing about the so called pattern of disruptive behavior, its non-existant. I've been learing who wikipedia and wikimedia opperates. And the sock was inevvertan and was caught by me, thats another reason why the comment was deleted. A sockpuppeter would have left that there. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been contradictory and knowingly lied (see comment below), how are we supposed to know when you're really telling the truth? You were attacking me for relying on information you provided and in that deleted comment, you admitted that I was right to rely upon the information and you had no grounds for your attack. The comment was very relevant. Beyond that, I see no problem with using deleted revisions to illustrate a point - you're not trustworthy and should not be allowed to participate on Wikimedia. bmpowell (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Mislead yes lied no--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My so called attack was just because you restored a cooment that sould not have been there in the first place. o can't assume everything, evthough you may be right. Your attack is vulgar and untrue. you should be ashamed of yourself.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told numerous times before, you simply saying that you have permission is not sufficient. The original copyright holder (not you) needs to submit written verification that he has granted permission for the images to be used. You saying he told you it was OK, or even him saying it over the phone, doesn't count. And you still were claiming images from others, such as the File:Potato knob.jpg photo you uploaded which clearly matched the same style as the Stanley Anderson photos, as being your own exclusively. bmpowell (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before there were jointly created by the two of us even tough it said that I created it soully. Its a litte misleading It was the only method that fit, and I was not given sufficient time as the block so falsely claim so don't try the had sufficient time claim. I know a lie whan I hear, or in this case see one. Two days aren't ennough time to get the permission request sent and approved you should know that. This is an application of the old computer clique "Garbage In Garbage Out". drop the block and Dr Anderson and I will straighten everything out, no strings attached.Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create a photograph jointly. Only one person can be behind the camera and they have copyright to the photo. That person wasn't you. Besides that, your claims that you created the photos solely are an example of your problems in complying with Wikimedia and Wikipedia copyright policies. bmpowell (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did create that to some degree, as I changed the original file format. Previous unsigned comment by SchoolcraftT

As was explained to you back on Wikipedia, that would be a derivative work. You cannot claim copyright to that file just for changing the file format or modifying someone else's work. bmpowell (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dr Anderson, those images were never copyrighted, and that's what he told me they were just his personal pictures and I don't see why this BLOCK IS EVEN NECESSARY. Its not always true that all images are copyrightred--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told this already. By virtue of their creation, the images were copyrighted. Stanley Anderson could release the photos into the public domain, but as things stand now there is no written verifiable proof that he has done so.

The US Copyright code says otherwise.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under U.S. copyright law, a work automatically has copyright protection by virtue of its creation. No registration is needed; the copyright symbol need not be shown. For Wikimedia's protection, their copyright policy requires that either the original author (not you, since you admit you were not the original author) upload works that they have allowed to be publicly used or that proper written documentation from the original author be provided. (See Commons:Licensing and other policies.) You did neither; you instead knowingly falsified the information as you've admitted to in your other comments. Your actions place Wikimedia at a great potential liability risk. bmpowell (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin wrote, your block is in place because of your repeated failure to follow Wikimedia and Wikipedia procedure and policies for respecting copyrights. You haven't been playing by the rules and refuse to play by the rules (or even acknowledge the problem, as far as I can tell) - that's why the block is necessary. bmpowell (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been playing by the rules either, when you uploaded the Molohan mill file, then you too were in violation of the copyright. Don't try to weasel your way out of this one. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, let's review here. You originally uploaded the Mollohan Mill photo, but as you've proven with many of your uploads and comments, you cannot spell correctly so the file was misnamed. Following a procedure at Commons:Move, I reuploaded the file with corrected spelling in the filename and asked to have the misnamed original deleted as a duplicate. I used the exact same licensing information you had provided. I had no way of knowing at that point that there was a problem with the licensing; I assumed that you were being truthful when you said it was your photograph. When I found out it likely wasn't yours, I contacted the administrator who deleted your other images and asked to have this image deleted as well. Don't go pointing fingers here; the only person you have to blame for your block is yourself. bmpowell (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it either until now, the were IDENTICAL and I'm serious. After I thought about it you were equaly involved in it as I was. I'm going to contact the admin who deleted the originals and tell him the truth. Like I said before "Garbage In Garbage Out" I'm a nice guy and If you'll droping this block, i might let it slide.--talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But you (via your sockpuppet) just said that I was right to assume that the images were yours (like you had tagged them). See [1]. bmpowell (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fibed. It proves that you shouldn't believe everything you hear. Previous unsigned comment by SchoolcraftT

Todd, Wikimedia relies on uploaders being truthful to shield itself and its end users from copyright liability. You just admitted to intentionally lying. It's way past obvious that your actions aren't just a failure to understand policies but are deliberate and possibly malicious. You have no business participating in Wikimedia. bmpowell (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of you attaching me. Please stop IMMEDIATELY, or run the risk of being blocked yourself. (This is Not a threat)--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored comment: More to this story

This comment below was left by User:4.249.180.228, a sockpuppet of User:SchoolcraftT in revision [2]. I think it is telling regarding this situation and merits being restored:

You were right to assume they were mine, but there is more to this story. One of the refrences was the origonal mountain parkway website. Since then it was taken down. The images were on the Mountain Parkway Article came from that website.Then I developed one to replace it don't know how copyright falls as far as websites in developement are concerned, but you think they become yours. I wasn't 100% sure so I used the recomended licence.

In this comment, it seems to me that SchoolcraftT is now admitting he took the images from somewhere else. I'm not even sure that they were taken by Stanley Anderson now. At any rate, it still shows a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright by SchoolcraftT and does nothing to negate his issues with incorrectly tagging the images and documenting permissions. bmpowell (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was deleted beacuse it was unnecessary and should not be included in the page. The admitting that was in the above coment, and the sockpuppet claim is FALSE. The coment was taken out of context. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth

I did develop a website where some of the deleted images were, AND IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. I misspoke when I said 'You were right to assume they were mine'. What Bmpowell said is a big lie.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS

I want to know whats going on here? Revove this protection IMMEDIATELY. Block Evanison is Not a valid reason For protecting one's talk page>--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requests

Also I want Bmpowell blocked indefenitly for repeted attacks, and Violating the 3rr rule— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 21:45, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

So you say you'll behave yourself and what are the first things you do? Delete comments by others unflattering to yourself, and when they get restored, edit those same comments to completely change their meaning. (See [3].) That's not appropriate behavior; that's abuse of your talk page and the unblock process. bmpowell (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What your doing is Malitioous and inexpliciable.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know there are public diff logs that show exactly what everyone has done, right? It's easy for anyone to see exactly what has occurred on this page. bmpowell (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit your comment. What you did however was vandalism. EVEN IF I DID IT WAS UNINTENTION, AND YES THAT WAS THE CASE.One of the things that can happen with multiple browser windows.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple browser windows open accidentally caused you to open edit mode, delete characters from a word in the middle of my comment and then click save? They caused you to unintentionally click the "Undo" button to roll-back a restored comment by me that you did not want and post a follow-up message saying that the deleted comment should be ignored if it showed back up? bmpowell (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thess atacks NOW. I said I'll behave and that's what I meant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 21:59, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "The copyright owner of deleted images has been contacted and permission is in the process of being granted This talk page if filled with attack after attack that aren't true, and my previous unblock attempt was . I have indeed requested the information that's necessary to grant such permission. The issue was dealt with as soon as the above issue was brought to my attention. This block was put in place because of events that are irrelevant to the issues here. I'll behave myself and be a good contributor.Don't believe the attacks that Bmpowell below this request"

Decline reason: "SchoolcraftT your account was blocked for repeated violations of copyright it remains blocked because these violations. When suitable permission is recieved via OTRS for the use of these images you can post the OTRS ticket number here and make another request to be unblocked at which time it'll be considered based on the circumstances then. Until then refrain from making further attacks against other contributors or this talk page will protected Gnan garra 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ /−

I was the one being attacked not one of the attacker <PA removed>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolcraftT your ability to edit this page has now been removed as has the PA which followed my declining of your unblock request and warning about further PA. Gnan garra 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Schoolcraft

Hi all,

I would like to give the unblock of SchoolcraftT one more shot. Perhaps call it the last chance, let's hope so for all parties involved. This follows an IRC conversation with SchoolcraftT regarding his block on Commons/Wikipedia.

My idea was to bind a few conditions, and to make the violation of any of these conditions, within 3 months after the unblock was accepted, result in a permanent block from editing here, no exceptions.

Following are the four conditions which were formed in collaboration with SchoolcraftT who agreed on the conditions in the form below:

Understanding of the principle to not touch other people's talk contributions (See also Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Editing or Deleting Existing Comments). There will be no editing/deleting of talk page contributions other then your own, that includes changing the signature of, whether or not accidentally used, sockpuppets/ip-addresses.
Basic understanding of the requirements of file uploads. No uploads that do not have at least an Author, Source and License defined. Whether they are 100% perfect and OTRS confirmed is another story. But these three basic things need to be filled in at upload.
No personal attacks towards other people whether Wikipedians or not.
No edit warring if SchoolcraftT is reverted for a second time on the same subject he will not revert again, but instead initiate a conversation with the reverting editor(s).

If one or the above conditions are violated within 3 months following the unblock the original infinite block will be reinstated. If SchoolcraftT has any questions or doubts about a certain situation, he's recommended to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or Commons:Help desk. Ofcourse other official policies still apply to everybody involved. This also goes for other users towards SchoolcraftT (personal attacks etc.)

At time of unblocking I suggest this talk page (except this section) be archived. And the situation be revisited here in 3 months.

Below this proposal, User:SchoolcraftT should add, just for verification following the IRC conversation, that he agrees with the above and undertands what it means. –Krinkle^talk 22:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to certify the above provisions as binding upon unblocking.

Jeffrey Todd Schoolcraft 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of this proposal considering all the broken promises SchoolcraftT has made in the past. We've given him chances in the past to do constructive work on other Wiki projects as a way to reestablish trust. To the best of my knowledge, he has failed to do that. I would like to hear an explanation from him why he did not avail himself of the opportunities he has had available already.

If we are going to implement this proposal, I'd suggest the probationary period be a minimum of 6 months. I would also be clear that the end of probationary period doesn't mean he goes back to square one if there is a future problem. SchoolcraftT has shown a tendency in the past with edit blocks to act like he is going to collaborate while restrictions are in place, even to the point of getting blocks canceled early, and then go right back to his old behavior as soon as the blocks expired. bmpowell (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolcraftT agreed with 3 months. I'm not sure more time is required, especially considering the fact that the above listed conditions are normal policies or guidelines on Commons anyway. The only difference is that it is in these three months that SchoolcraftT can proof that he knows what these policies well enough. After the 3 months regular policy still applies and would if violated obviously get him blocked, and eventually indefinite aswell. Also, 3 months is a pretty long time for a regular Wikipedia visitor. A lot can happen. Besides, like I said above, in 3 months the situation will be revisited. Ideally in the situation going normal, alternatively the strict conditions could be renewew for another time-period. –Krinkle^talk 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krinkle knows what he's doing. I wouldn't have agree to the proposal if was different than it already is. We had discussed the previsions in the proposal extensively, and we practically agreed on everything with the exception of a few addition which he brought to my attention. We worked at it for several hours and the preceding is what we came up with, and I'll abide to all of the previsions in this proposal. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has SchoolcraftT demonstrated that he correctly understands copyright law now? Considering all of the problems discussed previously with him not handling licensing properly, I would like to suggest that SchoolcraftT only be permitted to upload images and media that he personally created from scratch himself. For example, if he uploads a photograph it would need to be one that he took with a camera himself. His misstatements about the ownership of content previously are a major part of why he was banned and exposed the Wikimedia Foundation to enormous potential liability, issues with Todd heretofore has not addressed to anyone's satisfaction. bmpowell (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little chance that Wikimedia would face liabilty and thats still the case. I was going by what Dr Anderson had told me, and thats was all that I had information wise. The Norther Webster Co Improvement Council Inc probably would have done nothing against wikimedia. 20:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So now you're saying Stanley Anderson didn't even own the photos, the Northern Webster County Improvement Council did? The OTRS release you tried submitting said Stanley Anderson took the photos. You're also still trying to dodge the question of if you actually understand copyright law now. bmpowell (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Anderson is part of the Northern Webster Co Improvent Council. He wrote that with my help.. I' ve answered that question several times and you ignored it. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← I would also like to note this user is a confirmed sockpuppeteer, using a number of IPs to both evade his current block and to show support for himself. I would argue that if there is to be any unblock, which I do not support, another condition must be that he uses one account and does not edit while logged out. He will also be subject to occasional CheckUser sweeps to ensure compliance. Tiptoety ^talk 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--> Falls under the "Other Policies" Clause —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify exactly what you mean, SchoolcraftT? Are you saying that you recognize that your use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs was inappropriate, will not be done again, and that you should be subject to CheckUser verification? bmpowell (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock proposal is a bad idea. SchoolcraftT has clearly shown a willingness to do and say whatever he can to get his way. The good faith supply ran out long ago; we need to stop coddling unproductive users. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Huntster. SchoolcraftT's repeated actions speak louder than words. bmpowell (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You two just plain exagurate thing , the unblock proposai is a very good idea, and attacing my good name is not the way to get good faith with me. The best way to do is let bygons be bygons like I will do whater it takes. Before the rash of blocks for so called block evasion, i was asking for information pertaing toa otrs ticket and everting was OK. but someone had threated to revert my commnets on site, however I don't remember know made it. The commons amins had made this unnessesary worse than it needed to be. I will give you good faith as long as you give it back, and know whats going on before you block someone.I know that this comment may be harsh, but if it helps ease the tention between us so be it. Yes action speak louder than word but the oppoiste is true. Words have more bite than actions, and I using my words right noew to telll youn the truth,but you jump to conclusions. I'm guilty of it too, but I learn the truth. Krinke has help me greatly with that, and he wrote this propsal with me in mind. But attacks downgrade my very good intentions. Like Krinkl's comment he told me his english wasn't good so I help him fix some spelling mistkes on the proposal to make it look better, but the clam said that the proposal is a done been violated not true. it still has to either be appoved as is or be ammended,and Hinster your more than welcome to help in that process. Lets froget about my past actions for a little while and make this proposal even better. It'll take some time but, but I know it will work, whether in its presenf form or not Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just some food for thought

Crossposted to en.wiki Talk Page

I have posted a notice of this proposal to SchoolcraftT's en.wiki talk page to give users there a chance to weigh in. Sufficient time needs to be provided for any interested parties from en.wiki to discuss this proposal before it is implemented. bmpowell (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahm, as far as I know these blocks are seperate and are their unblocking. This proposal was written for Commons. Though if accepted here it is a logic step to propose the same for en.wiki admins regarding his block there. But at original intend the above is written for Commons. Just so you know. –Krinkle^talk 00:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the clarification, Krinkle. You said in your original comment that you had talked with SchoolcraftT about Commons/Wikipedia and made references to both sites in your responses above, so I was under the impression that this proposal was intended to apply to both. I guess I was mistaken. bmpowell (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it was writen in such a way that it could be be applied to both projects. We were talking about an incident in which you were caught in the middle (Elen of the Roads Reverting of one of your relevent Comments, vandalisticly at that) at first and he had mentioned this to me and the rest was history. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads was attempting to cleanup an inappropriate e-mail you posted. An administrator had to go through your en.wiki talk page and permanently hide several revisions that contained your edit. What she did was not vandalism. Also, Krinkle has clarified now that this proposal only extended to Commons.bmpowell (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. However it wouldn't be unlikely that if some form of proposal is accepted for unblock on Commons, a similar procedure may be possible on Wikipedia. But that's for another story. –Krinkle^talk 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal already violated

It appears to me that SchoolcraftT has already violated the terms of this proposal. Today, he tried to hide previous discussion on this page, edited one of Krinkle's talk page contributions, and slandered en.wiki user Elen of the Roads by claiming she acted "vandalisticly" in trying to clean-up after an inappropriate e-mail SchoolcraftT posted. bmpowell (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide diffs? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are none, see note below Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are diffs:

Attempt to hide previous discussion: [4].
On en.wiki talk page where Elen of the Roads cleaned up inappropriate e-mail: [5]. (Note the blocked revisions.) Here's on this Commons talk page where SchoolcraftT called her a vandal for doing it: [6]
Edit to Krinkle's comment: [7]. It's a minor spelling change, but still the point is he shouldn't have been touching someone else's contributions at all.

Hope this helps. bmpowell (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs in the en wiki are in question because the en wiki talk page the was a comment of yours that was affected by the reveresion which led me to believe thta was vandalism based on event that were related to the block The klast diff is also questonable condiering that krinkle had told em it was OK Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see where Krinkle made any such comment. Can you provide a diff? bmpowell (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't it was in a coversation between krinke and me on th otrs IRC chanael, and the proposal hasn't takren effect yet. It still has to ge approved before its officaly binding. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal already violated (not)

Not true, the proposal only applies for deleting other peoples comments and The preceding coment wasn't an attack but my honest opinion based on the rules of wikimedia.Besides I was taking about that from a admins point of view, and most admins would agree with me. I learned from one of professors in college that you don't assume anything, and your comment was a classic example of what happens when someone assumes something is true. Nine times out of ten the assumption is wrong, as was the case this time. I don't understand why being honest can constitute a violation of the proposal. I had followed it to the word. However, you are in violation of the "other users" Clause of the proposal, which states that other official policies still apply to everybody involved. This also goes for other users towards SchoolcraftT (personal attacks etc.)Besides it becomes binding only when I'm unblocked, eventhough I had said its binding. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC

The proposal was that you would "not touch other people's talk contributions". The referenced article states that "you should never modify comments by others, except for indentation and the addition of a subject heading." The agreement was not that you just wouldn't delete others' comments.

Considering you've been blocked for violating basic rules of being an editor, I don't think you're in a position to evaluate what administrators would think of something. The fact that an administrator followed up and permanently blocked access to the posts that Elen of the Roads reverted confirms that she was correct in her actions.

I don't know what you think I assumed. And I especially don't see how you figure I'm in violation of the Commons:Policies and Guidelines. I am perfectly free to comment on how I believe your behavior has been appropriate. Despite what you appear to think based on your comments here and on en.wiki, criticism of one's actions is not automatically a personal attack.

You stated that you agreed the provisions were binding. Whether or not the clauses became officially binding then or upon the acceptance of the unblock is beside the point - the clauses of the proposal are based on existing policies of Wikimedia Commons. Beyond that, it doesn't look good when you violate the rules set out in a proposal when you're trying to convince us you'll follow those same rules if you're permitted to edit again. bmpowell (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The propsal was'n exact an was made to be amended, ther are some thing that aren't covered, but krilke and I just cover the basise of the block. I still will abid to everting in that poropsal to word, and I'm goint to add somee other things from our coversations and intergrate into anew proposal that will be final. There will always be some technicalities and my comment below the propsal has been edited to state that "this is to cerify that the proposal is binding upon unblocking" I aprriciate you noting them , but don't slander me in the process of doing so. Hopefully this will ease the confusion that my comments had produced, but if theres anything else you want me to add to this proposal let me know, and that inclusdes admins and other users. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing everying is open for critism, even one actions. 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record

The reason for the RevDelete on Todd's Wikipedia account is that he copied an email that he'd sent to OTRS onto his talkpage. The email contained the name, full address, telephone number and email address of the third party, non Wikipedia editor, involved in the OTRS ticket. I saw it, went "aargh!", rollbacked and asked an admin to revdelete, as I was sure the other chap hadn't given his permission to have his address and phone number posted on the internet. I caught it as fast as I noticed, but the rollback may well have taken a couple of innocent edits out as well. Todd knows full well that it wasn't vandalism, because he was told why it was done - this is another example of his habit of personally attacking other editors for making good faith edits.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on eleged edit

Your claim that I edited krinkle comment in violation of the proposal were false as well the only thing that was changed was to fix some spelling mistakes in the proposal itself that I didn't catch. i had a hand in the drafting of it.Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you agreed to "not touch other people's talk contributions." You violated that rule. bmpowell (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is very infomal, I will make it formal once the unblock occuresd> Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nessessary Archive work needed inmediately=

This talk tape is getting way too big as far as size is concerned I suggest that the the oldest commentss in this talk page be archive before this page is so slow to load, no one wans to read it Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit trying to hide past comments. The archiving issue can be address later if your unblock request is ever accepted. bmpowell (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Schoolcraft (Amendment)

To all amdins on commons

Six days ago, Krinkle had put a proposal for my unblock. Per your concerns I have amended the propsal with Krinke's premission and this one superseades the preveous one.

Hi all,

I would like to give the unblock of SchoolcraftT one more shot. Perhaps call it the last chance, let's hope so for all parties involved. This follows an IRC conversation with SchoolcraftT regarding his block on Commons/Wikipedia.
My idea was to bind a few conditions, and to make the violation of any of these conditions, within 3 months after the unblock was accepted, result in a permanent block from editing here, no exceptions.
Following are the five conditions which were formed in collaboration with SchoolcraftT who agreed on the conditions in the form below:
1.Understanding of the principle to not touch other people's talk contributions (See also Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Editing or Deleting Existing Comments). There will be no editing/deleting of talk page contributions other then your own, that includes changing the signature of, whether or not accidentally used, sockpuppets/ip-addresses.
2.Basic understanding of the requirements of file uploads. No uploads that do not have at least an Author, Source and License defined. Whether they are 100% perfect and OTRS confirmed is another story. But these three basic things need to be filled in at upload.
3.No personal attacks towards other people whether Wikipedians or not.
4.No sockpuppetry
5.No edit warring if SchoolcraftT is reverted for a second time on the same subject he will not revert again, but instead initiate a conversation with the reverting editor(s).

If one or the above conditions are violated within 3 months following the unblock the original infinite block will be reinstated. If SchoolcraftT has any questions or doubts about a certain situation, he's recommended to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or Commons:Help desk. Ofcourse other official policies still apply to everybody involved. This also goes for other users towards SchoolcraftT (personal attacks etc.)
At time of unblocking I suggest this talk page (except this section) be archived. And the situation be revisited here in 3 months, and subject him to a monthly checkuser.
Below this proposal, User:SchoolcraftT should add, just for verification following the IRC conversation, that he agrees with the above and undertands what it means.
(This is to certify the above provisions as binding upon unblocking.)
Jeffrey Todd Schoolcraft 12:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any futther questions about the proposal should be addressed with this one, and because of some major confusion over the preveous one being binding or not, this will NOT take affect unil three days after the date of unblock. I have a autoarchive box on this talk page. If there is missing comments due to this process, don't painic or cry foul. Ć12:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These are essentially all basic Wikimedia Commons policies already. For you to try to give yourself a three day window to do whatever you please is ridiculous. I'm still strongly against unblocking SchoolcraftT.

Considering that the consensus here appears to be running against unblocking SchoolcraftT based on comments by Tiptoety, Huntster and myself, it seems unlikely this proposal will come to fruition. If it does actually get implemented, I suggest SchoolcraftT be required to leave all existing talk page comments exactly as they are and where they are now for at least the duration of this probationary period. I wouldn't want to see anything "accidentally" happen to them. bmpowell (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It there to avoid amymore alleged violations to surface until then, Its part of the areemewnt and the archiving part of the I will not change. This time will be used to address betwwen us any other tenicicalites that might surface. The will still be there, but I have to agree with Krinkle my talk page shoud be archived and they (the Comments) won't be lost. Ultimately it will be in Krinkle's hands considering he is the blocking admin. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← FYI I don't like negativity. The three day window is so that every admin has a chance to read and understand the previsions in the proposal.

I don't see how freeing you from the requirements of the proposal temporarily has any any impact on administrators understanding it. Any interested admins can read it now. bmpowell (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the point of the time window so in the event I get unblocked before all the admins can read it. It will give them time to read it. I'll still have to follow it, but it will help the admins understand the situation a little bit better. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement seems more confusing than ever, but you do appear to be saying that you will be bound by the full terms of the agreement from the instant the block is lifted. (If it should actually be lifted.) Correct? bmpowell (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for SchoolcraftT

If you were to be unblocked, what would you do with your restored editing privileges? How would you become a valuable contributor to the wiki? What areas would you see yourself likely to work in?

It has been suggested to you by various people that you contribute to some other wikis (i.e., not en.wiki and Commons) to demonstrate that you can actually work well with others. Why haven't you done this? bmpowell (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since youm asked, I would catch up on some editing, and to become a MVC, I would help user like Krinkle to do some spellchecking on articles a lot like I did with is proposal Being a history Buff, I would like to work on an article regaring Senator Byrd.

Unknown to you, I have worked on getting the mountain parkway articl translated into diffrent languages an post them on their wikkipedia pages. Its still a work in progress, but I have indead done somthing on othther wikis with no incidents whatso ever. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind this proposal is for Wikimedia Commons. What would you do here on Commons?

So that everyone fully understands, what do you mean by "MVC"? How would you help with correcting spelling in articles considering the multitude of spelling errors in your posts?

You were asked to establish a history of ongoing participation and collaboration. Not just one-off edits. If you've got a track record, please point us to it with some links and diffs. I went through a number of Wikimedia projects (de.wiki, pl.wiki, nl.wiki, pl.wiki, es.wiki, fr.wiki, it.wiki, simple.wiki, en.wikisource, en.wiktionary, en.wikinews, en.wikibooks, en.wikiuniversity) and couldn't find user accounts for you at any of them. bmpowell (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Rolex_series_hits_the_high_banks_of_Daytona_for_the_100th_Daytona_prototype_Race#Sources

You created that single example today, after I brought up the issue. That's not exactly an established track record. bmpowell (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That dose not include thean article on french wiki thta was mistakenly deleted. Nevertless it esabishes a history none the less. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that the article deletion at fr.wiki was accidental. You did a sloppy job in creating it. If you're going to try contributing in another language, you should actually know that language rather than relying on software translation.

Again, the idea of you going to other wikis was that over a period of several months, you'd build up a history of edits and could prove you could act in a constructive manner ([8][9]). Running one article through Babelfish (or whatever software you used) and slapping it on fr.wiki is not what anyone had in mind. We're looking for some real, genuine effort from you. You're the one who needs to prove you can be a good contributor. The little bit of slipshod work you've done does nothing to demonstrate a good track record. bmpowell (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, here is a list of all edits attached to the single-user login (SUL) for "SchoolcraftT": http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=SchoolcraftT&lang=

And to Todd, Haitian Creole appears to be quite removed from French, and you mixed HC and English words together. I would suggest something more like "Je crois que l'article 'Mountain Parkway Byway' a été injustement supprimé. Je voudrais une explication des raisons pour lesquelles elle a été supprimée." — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write like that. I use one of translator websites and that might have done it, not humanly done. IN the meantime, i would like an admin on fr wikki to have another look at that aricle again just to be sure. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do yuo want me to try again —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 14:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC) Note: It was used as a tool, nothing more nothing less.

If you want to have the article deletion on fr.wiki reconsidered, you need to bring it up on there following their procedures. Commons is not an appropriate place to discuss the issue.

I would hazard to guess the fact you used an automatic translation site to generate the article, rather than actually writing it in French yourself, is a big part of the reason why the article was deleted. Since the topic was something of minor interest in middle of West Virginia and probably unintelligible, I could understand how an administrator would have felt the article was not worth keeping. bmpowell (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slanering regarding Eleged Socks & denied permission e-mail ( Suposidly)

Six Months ago I was requestiong information about an OTRS Ticket and everytining was OK. Then all of a suddon, I get these fractious blocks placed againd me. Then this was placed on the OTRS Noticeboard:

Indented line

For what it is worth, the user (and all his block evading IPs) who started this thread is a user who has been indef blocked for violating copyright rules. He is now trying get OTRS to do the same. I think the best response at this time would be none at all. Tiptoety talk 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then there was a threat that comments were to be reverted upon sight, which never happened,but its troubled me none the less.

Then when I hadn't herd from the otrs in a while, I went to the OTRS IRC Chanel and I get the claim that the premission e-mal was invalid, which I knew otherwise. Any information on why that e-mail was demmed invalid would be appriciated

Then there was a false sock claim, the was a ip address on this talk page that wasn't even mine. I didn't know what happend, and I don't wan to know.

I believe, and I enfesize the word believe, that theese, and the blocks was an attempt to slander my good name for whats its not. Whether thats the case or not is debatable. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were blocked to prevent you from continuing to upload images that were copyright violations. I've also reviewed the OTRS communications, and the reviewing volunteers decided there was just too little evidence that the copyright holder was the one actually sending the emails. The primary issue is that the emails were sent from an address that could not be attached to Mr. Anderson's name, but additionally, there was evidence that even Mr. Anderson wasn't the copyright holder. I see no attempt to "slander" your name; there's just zero evidence that either you or Mr. Anderson are the copyright holders of these works, and when there's reason to doubt, we must err on the side of caution and deny the uploads.

Frankly, you would need to provide evidence (diffs, specific quotes) of any such slandering before such a claim can be taken seriously. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were attach to Dr Anderson's e-mail, and he wrote it and sent it, no question about it As far as diffs check the OTRS Notice Board Archive 7. he did . The email address on that permission is indeed his. The evidence that they claimed that he wasn't the copyright holder is questionable at best considering that I got a e-mail saying that they can't find the images in question. I'm not holding anything against the OTRS, but something doesn't feel right with what your telling me. Error on the side of Caution is one thing, but cover up is something else. I know what I said may seem like a PA, but its not. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the copyright vios, I was going on what Dr Anderson had told me before I uploaded them, which was "they were free". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 12:16, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

You had earlier claimed that the images were yours, not Dr. Anderson's. Then when you tried submitting OTRS tickets, you failed to follow proper procedure and sent them yourself versus having Dr. Anderson send them from his account. bmpowell (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there seems to be no consensus to allow SchoolcraftT to begin editing again and he has taken to using this talk page to lash out at others and rehash settled issues from months ago, I think it might be time to reinstate the block to prevent him from editing this page. It seems to me that there is little point in wasting admin/editor time on this issue any further. bmpowell (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porposal discussion getting too heated

To all that's involve in the review of SchoolcraftT Unblock Proposal

The disscussion are getting heated, in fact too heated. Noboys is even willing to give this a try. We need to settle down and take the proposal that's on the table and break it down componet by componet. I wanted a heated discussion, but the above is not what I had in. Lets just put our differences aside and lets make this proposal work for the future of the wikimedia projects. I appreciate your comments. I want to be a part of the wikimedia family, but i need your cooperation and support in this matter. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolcraftT, this discussion isn't strictly about what you want. It's about what is in the best interest of Wikimedia Commons. The majority of participants appear to agree that based on your past (and ongoing) actions, that you editing is not in Wikimedia Commons' best interest. bmpowell (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I reverted some of SchoolcraftT's edits this morning because he deleted comments I had posted. I reintegrated his main new comment, this "Proposal discussion getting too heated" section. Diff is at [10] showing the revert. bmpowell (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted one of my comments i and I see your diff and raise you three;

(cur | prev) 15:46, 10 July 2010 Bmpowell (talk | contribs) (60,583 bytes) (restore my earlier comment) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:45, 10 July 2010 Bmpowell (talk | contribs) (60,133 bytes) (criticism and retelling of history does not equal personal attack) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:44, 10 July 2010 Bmpowell (talk | contribs) (59,722 bytes) (→Porposal discussion getting too heated: link to revert) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:43, 10 July 2010 SchoolcraftT (talk | contribs) (59,272 bytes) (→Slanering regarding Eleged Socks & denied permission e-mail ( Suposidly): Revoval OF pA) (undo)

in bestrewn each diff was an edit confict not reverting, and I was fixing an bad choice of words. I don't take crisism very well at all. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tried deleting my comment several times. Diffs: [11] and [12]. The fact you "don't take criticism very well at all" ([13]) is a big indicator of why you should not be editing here. bmpowell (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had done the exact same thing to me by delteting a comment in the makeing pertaining to something that wasn't directed at you.Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then restore your comment. Don't go removing my comments in the process. bmpowell (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Seeing as you just can't stop editing others comments, and engaging in the same behavior that got your talk page access yanked last time I have done so again. Additionally, I will not be replying to any further email requests of yours. That said, you can continue to contest your block via email to other administrators. Tiptoety ^talk 19:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC bans

This user has been banned from several IRC channels. He wishes to point inquiring souls at his appeal on m:User talk:SchoolcraftT. —Pathoschild 18:41:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolcraftT has been indefinitely banned here and on en.wiki. He has tried to get unbanned multiple times and has been denied each time because he immediately demonstrates that he would go right back to his previous behavior. He has used IP and username sockpuppets to circumvent the ban. He's had way too many chances already and, in my opinion, it is not worth the resources to offer him any more. He's not going to change. Bitmapped (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SchoolcraftT

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images

File tagging File:Cemetary.jpg

File tagging File:Holly river.jpg

File tagging File:Senior center.jpg

File tagging File:Hacker Valley School.jpg

File tagging File:Upper falls.jpg

File:Potato knob.jpg

File tagging File:Potato knob.jpg

File tagging File:Park Entrance.jpg

Stop your vandalism

File tagging File:Hanning Rocks.jpg

Sign your comments

Blocked

Restored comment: More to this story

The Truth

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS

requests

Unblock Schoolcraft

Crossposted to en.wiki Talk Page

Proposal already violated

Proposal already violated (not)

For the record

Note on eleged edit

Nessessary Archive work needed inmediately=

Unblock Schoolcraft (Amendment)

Questions for SchoolcraftT

Slanering regarding Eleged Socks & denied permission e-mail ( Suposidly)

Porposal discussion getting too heated

IRC bans

Navigation menu

User talk:SchoolcraftT

Tip: Categorizing images

File tagging File:Cemetary.jpg

File tagging File:Holly river.jpg

File tagging File:Senior center.jpg

File tagging File:Hacker Valley School.jpg

File tagging File:Upper falls.jpg

File:Potato knob.jpg

File tagging File:Potato knob.jpg

File tagging File:Park Entrance.jpg

Stop your vandalism

File tagging File:Hanning Rocks.jpg

Sign your comments

Blocked

Restored comment: More to this story

The Truth

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS

requests

Unblock Schoolcraft

Crossposted to en.wiki Talk Page

Proposal already violated

Proposal already violated (not)

For the record

Note on eleged edit

Nessessary Archive work needed inmediately=

Unblock Schoolcraft (Amendment)

Questions for SchoolcraftT

Slanering regarding Eleged Socks & denied permission e-mail ( Suposidly)

Porposal discussion getting too heated

IRC bans

Navigation menu

Search