User talk:AmSam13

Hi AmSam13! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Hart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note about your Love Island comment. It's probably best not to mention the rationale for why other editors have done what they have done, or to comment on them at all. There is a Wiki adage "comment on the edit, not the editor", and it's worth bearing in mind when discussing an article's content. It doesn't matter if an editor is a fan of the programme or not - what matters is the reasons they give for not having the information in the lead. Focus on that and not the person behind it if you can. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. Will do.AmSam13 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please do not upload copyright-protected images of living persons under a fair use rationale. Images of living persons cannot be claimed under fair use policy as they nearly always fail non-free content criteria number 1, specifically "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As long as it is possible that there could be a free image of the subject available for use, or there could be one available in the future, then fair use cannot be claimed for the copyrighted images. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why is the image copyrighted? I'm not trying to use it under fair use, I uploaded it as it was from a Creative Commons YouTube video.AmSam13 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's copyrighted because it's an image you've snipped from a television program and you do not hold the copyright for the image. Please read the image policy I linked to for further information.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make baseless claims about me. I have absolutely not 'snipped' it from a television program, I have got it from a screenshot of a YouTube video with a Creative Commons license. This is allowed on Wikipedia, you should know that. Just look at the details of the photo on Wikimedia Commons for goodness sake, it will show that it is from a FREE YouTube video. AmSam13 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Snipped" = "screenshot". It is a screenshot of a television program and it is the television program (or ITV Studios to be more precise) that own the copyright regardless of who uploads the video of ITV's program to YouTube. Such images cannot be used in BLPs. If it was a screenshot of an interview between the subject and Cosmopolitan UK that Cosmo uploaded to their own channel then Cosmopolitan's Creative Commons license would apply. If you are unsure you can ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for additional input. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Ash Sarka have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ash Sarkar is not described as far left in your source. In fact, reliable sources do not describe her as far left. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw you reverted my edit; I totally understand why, but the rationale is MOS:SUPERCAT — Category:People with non-binary gender identities is redundant because she is also in Category:Non-binary models. I've restored my edit and, similarly, just removed Category:Queer people (parent to Category:Queer women) and Category:Transgender and transsexual women (grandparent category to Category:Transgender and transsexual female models).

Thanks for keeping an eye out for people making bad edits to articles about LGBTQ+ people, though. If you are looking for other useful work on LGBTQ+ topics, there's a page at WP:LGBT/Editing, a subpage of WP:WikiProject LGBT studies, where your efforts would I'm sure be greatly appreciated. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for explaining, I understand now. Wasn't quite clued up on the category rules so thank you.AmSam13 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of terrorist incidents in London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westbourne Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at List of terrorist incidents in London shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what this is all about. You and your socks LOVE editing the articles of LGBTQ semi-celebrities and athletes, and here you are claiming that suffragettes were terrorists. Very strange. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AmSam13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Hi, I don't really understand why I have been blocked indefinitely and all my historical edits removed. I know I received a warning for edit warring, but this is my first block so I'm not sure why I have been blocked indefinitely. AmSam13 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC) AmSam13 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

As shown below, this is untrue. You know perfectly well. This unblock request will count against you in the future, as we don't look kindly on people who try to mislead us. Yamla (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• No, first you need to explain why you and your socks have such a fascination with the sexuality of athletes. Wikipedia is not for therapy. For the benefit of the onlookers, the socks we just blocked are Beevor54 (talk · contribs), Where's my Lasange (talk · contribs), and Speaker of Truth and Wisdom (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, look, you got me. Those are also my accounts, and I have been using them inappropriately, so I'm sorry for that. I have done some good edits as well though, all the stuff I've added on the List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland page was all in good faith and cited to the best of my ability. I admit that my edits have not always been great, but I hope if I get another chance and just restrict myself to adding non-controversial or private material then I can show that I can also add helpful edits. AmSam13 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did get you. This would have been less damning if you hadn't been edit warring with all these accounts over some seriously inflammatory content. I mean, who goes around insisting that suffragettes are to be equated with suicide bombers and mass murderers? And what's with the interest in other people's sexual preferences?

You can have another chance--this is our "standard offer": WP:OFFER. Your chances of ever getting back in if you also cop to previous accounts you used. Also pinging Black Kite and Jpgordon. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that sounds fair, so thank you. I genuinely didn't mean to equate suffragettes with suicide bombers and mass murderers - I totally recognise that the small group of suffragettes that did undertake militant activities cannot be defined as 'terrorists' in the modern sense of the word, I just felt that their bombing campaigns in particular might be worth mentioning on pages providing lists of terrorist incidents. But I understand that I should have considered other users' point of view.

The interest in other people's sexual preferences comes from my love of women's football, I am a LGBT women's footballer myself so I wanted to make clear who are the LGBT heroes in the sport... but I can see that I am not supposed to be WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. This is why the my edits on people's sexuality were primarily on women's footballers, and I think were almost all on female sportspeople.

If possible, could you please clarify, should I wait 6 months before applying for an unblock? I would quite happily delete the other accounts I had: User:Where's my Lasange, User:Beevor54 and User:Speaker of Truth and Wisdom if that helps. AmSam13 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The other accounts are already blocked; accounts aren't "deleted" on Wikipedia, anyway. Why did you feel the need to use multiple accounts? At any rate, you've done one of the worst possible things on Wikipedia. We're based on a concept of consensus, and you've been attempting to feign consensus by using alternate accounts. If you hadn't done exactly that, I'd be inclined to let you off with "time served". Instead, yes, the standard offer is the best you can do; come back in six months, without editing Wikipedia at all in any way, and request unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What can I say really, I did not realise that there were such serious consequences of using multiple accounts as sockpuppets, but I know that's no excuse - I knew full well deep down that it wasn't something that would be condoned. Someone had mentioned me doing 'sock' edits before, but since I am new to this is didn't know what that term meant at the time and thought nothing more of it, otherwise I would have had a better understanding of the full implications of my actions. But yes, in review all I can say is that I do admit to using the four accounts improperly and to feign consensus, I accept that it is entirely fair to block all the accounts in that case and all I can say is I apologise to all the editors who I've inconvenienced, mislead and annoyed. I hope I have not ruined the pages that I have edited on. If I was to get another chance in future, I would certainly avoid using multiple accounts and would not edit on such controversial issues. AmSam13 (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply