AmericanPatriot29

"{{unblock|I do not see a reason to be blocked. I believe my work is helpful. I see that Will Beback is undoing my edits due to apparent copyright vios. I would be more then happy to resolve the copyright problems because I do not like putting up copyright vios and I do not believe any of them are. I would be more then happy to review the copyrights together to find the appropriate tags but I was blocked instead. I hope it's not a problem and I will do whatever is necessary to resolve whatever copyright issues there are. Will Beback is reverting many images that are not copyright vios and belong to bioguide congress along with many others that I would be happy to explain if I am given a chance. Can I at least explain the apparent copyright vios? Please contact me and thanks.}}

AmericanPatriot29 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are using a sockpuppet to edit here after you were indefinitely blocked, in part of your plagiarism and false statements about copyrights? After you promised not to return? As you can see below, I'm not the only one who's noticed the latest problems with your "contributions". Please go back to Stormfront and contribute there. -Will Beback 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to go over the copyright violations if that is possible because I do not believe they are violations. I will go over a few of the alleged copyright violations:

Image:Robert Clymer Hendrickson.jpg and Image:Irving McNeil Ives.jpg were from the biographical directory of congress and I properly did the copyright and you removed it anyways.

Then most of the other images did not have a copyright listed on the pages and appeared to have no copyright restrictions. Instead of confronting me with possible vios you blocked me. It would have been nice to review the copyrights together if there was a problem.

Image:Sudentenland2.jpg –This image does not have a copyright listed on the website and I believe that if it was copyrighted they would have been sure to include it. It is from a university and most websites like this do not have copyrights. If you like I would be more then happy to call them tomorrow and ask although I do not believe that there is a copyright and I am nearly 100 percent postive.

Image:WhalenHughesAlLodwick.jpg –It’s the same story with this photograph. There is no copyright listed on the site and most government websites do not have copyrights listed have their pictures in the public domain. I would be more then happy to call them as well tomorrow if there is a copyright right problem but I do not believe there is.

Image:Scvlogo2.jpg –This is there official logo and I put the image under logo and you removed it. I do not see a copyright problem.

Image:Owen Lattimore.jpg –There was no copyright listed on this photograph as well and it was listed in the library of congress. The library of conress received it from the encylopedia britannica but said that there were no copyright restrictions. I know the correct copyright but for some reason the correct template for the copyright was not working so I put it under a government agency because it was from the library of congress.

Image:BuchananNixon2.jpg –This picture comes from a private website and they certainly do not own the rights to the photo. I am positive they took it from somewhere else even though their website has a copyright for their writing. I was going to write for this picture to contact me if there were any problems because I thought that that there would be problems but I didn’t. I am not sure about the copyright on this one but I can call the website tomorrow and do some further research. I believe that it could be an associated press photo.

Image:ByrdRichardEvelyn.jpg –This website did not have a copyright listed as well and I am nearly positive it was released from the department of defense as a military photo. This group of pictures can also be found on many websites and they also do not have a copyright listed and credit it to congress: http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/flightexhibit/legacy.htm

http://www.jamescairdsociety.com/films.php

http://www.lawlessdecade.net/new1927.html

www.arlingtoncemetery.net%2Frebyrd.htm&size=23.8kB&name=rebyrd02.jpg&p=richard+byrd&type=jpeg&no=149&tt=1,214&ei=UTF-8 –This website also has the same photo and credited it to another free public run website that was originally given the photo from the gov. and say it is free for public use as it is an official military photo and is widely distributed on many websites for admiral Byrd. I can even show more websites but I do not believe that is necessary.

Image:PeroutkaBaldwin.jpg – Then this belongs to the constitution party and Michael Peroutka and they allow their photos to be used for promotional purposes and do not have a copyright on their websites for photographs.

If you have any more questions just ask. I would just appreciate if we can clear up these copyright problems.

AmericanPatriot29 06:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have one more question- why do you keep sneaking back after you've been banned for lying? Don't you have any honor? -Will Beback 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be more then happy to answer your questions I would just like to address the copyright issues. I feel that it is wrong for you to label copyright vios on photographs that are fine. I would appreciate if we can go over them and if we can fix the tags.

AmericanPatriot29 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If these images are worthwhile, another editor will add them, thanks anyway. You've proven yourself untrustworthy, particularly in the context of copyright and intellectual property. (as it happens, I did not delete every image you uploaded under this name, as a few did appear to be properly licensed/PD). You've had several chances here and you keep going back to adding plagiarized, copied, and improperly licensed material. It's not just the plagiarism - pushing the POV of racism and anti-semitism is not welcome either. The neo-nazi perspective is fully covered in our articles on those topics and we don't need biased editors adding that material to other topics as well. Your involvement with this project has been reviewed by the community, commented on, and a consensus of administrators agreed that you are no longer welcome here. If you wish to appeal the decision of the administrators, you may make a case to the arbitrators. Based on your use of sockpuppets, continued copyright violations, and POV pushing, I am certain of the outcome. Please find another summer project. -Will Beback 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If these images are worthwhile, another editor will add them, thanks anyway. You've proven yourself untrustworthy, particularly in the context of copyright and intellectual property. (as it happens, I did not delete every image you uploaded under this name, as a few did appear to be properly licensed/PD).

You removed several photos that had no copyright vios as well as many other edits that were harmless. How is adding a thumbnail to a picture vandalism? You also accused me of copyright vios without proof. There is no proof that the pictures were copyright vios as I have explained above. Instead of trying to review the possible copyright vios to find the appropriate tags you blocked me and portray me as a disruptive editor who does nothing but cause trouble. What did I plagiarize?

You've had several chances here and you keep going back to adding plagiarized, copied, and improperly licensed material.

I have not had several chances. That is a lie. I did not post any plagiarized or copied work and there is no evidence that I intentionally posted copyright vios nor is there evidence they are actual copyright vios. You even said yourself many of my photographs are not vios and properly addressed.

It's not just the plagiarism - pushing the POV of racism and anti-semitism is not welcome either.

I generally just added pictures I didn't even work on articles nor did I add racism and anti semetism. If you can care to point it out I would be happy to review it.

Your involvement with this project has been reviewed by the community, commented on, and a consensus of administrators agreed that you are no longer welcome here. If you wish to appeal the decision of the administrators, you may make a case to the arbitrators. Based on your use of sockpuppets, continued copyright violations, and POV pushing, I am certain of the outcome. Please find another summer project.

The issue I have is you presented biased information to the community and I was not even able to defend myself. What kind of trail is that? Since when are you able to be the judge, defense attorney, and prosecution? I do not have continued copyright violations and POV pushing. That is not true and you know it. I don't want to cause problems like you try to make it out to be. It's nice how you didn't even address the copyright issues.

AmericanPatriot29 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the copyright or racism issues further. There is only one issue at hand. You are evading a block. You're not denying that fact so there's nothing else to discuss. All accounts set up to evade a block may also be blocked. You may email members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if you wish to appeal. -Will Beback 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I was unrightfully blocked and there is a huge amount of information to go over. It would be difficult for someone to briefly review the case especially when we have a major bias on your part so I do not want to waste my time. I really don't want to be disruptive and I believe that you are not being fair. I really would like to move on and just fix the copyright issues. May I please at least resolve the copyright issues and restore some edits that you removed with your supervision? Can we at least go over the copyrights together and find the appropriate tags? I know those pictures are not copyright vios and I would hate to see them get deleted. You removed pictures with no copyright vios that were from bioguide congress. It would be additional work for other editors to re upload the same photos that you removed so if you can please add those back I would appreciate it. I didn't even edit actual articles on this account other then very minor edits so I believe that your racism charge is wrong.

AmericanPatriot29 09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are only two honorable options: stop editing at Wikipedia, or appeal your block. (The case is not terribly complex so it would not strain the ArbCom.) Please do not take the third option of slithering around like a snake in the grass. -Will Beback 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I appeal a ban? The only person I am able to talk to is you and you have repeatedly slithered around to get me banned and there is nothing to lead me to believe that I should trust you and that the appeal will be just. I can not even defend myself. When I appeal a ban I may be able to make a statement but the committee privately discusses the matter with you and goes over the problems without even confronting me. You selectively pick work, take it out of context, exaggerate, and make me out to be some copyright monster who intentionally disrupts wikipedia which is not true and I can not even explain the edits in questions to the committee myself. You act as the prosecution, my attorney, and the judge. There is nothing more that I would like to do then cooperate with the committee and anyone who has problems with my work but I am denied. I merely would like to be allowed to answer the committees’ questions. Why can't we go over the copyright issues? You incorrectly label my work as copyright violations and I am not even allowed to neither review it nor fix any mistakes there might be by finding the appropriate tags. There is also no evidence that I intentionally put up copyright vios. The pictures without copyright vios should have not been removed because other editors will re upload them which wll be additional work.

AmericanPatriot29 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not understand our dispute resolution procedures. First, your block has been reviewed by a different administrator than those who previously reviewed your case.[1] That shows this is not a one-man vendetta against you but rather is an action by the community. Second, I am not a member of the ArbCom. It is a different group than the adminstrators who have handled the matter thus far. You are free to give the ArbCom your evidence, to defend yourself, answer their questions, etc. . Lastly, your questions about copyrights and any other contributions are moot because you are blocked. To put this into perspective, you are like an illegal immigrant complaining about his Social Security witholding. First resolve your status here, then we can talk about the other matters. -Will Beback 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not understand our dispute resolution procedures. First, your block has been reviewed by a different administrator than those who previously reviewed your case.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry_Jones.2FJJstroker]That shows this is not a one-man vendetta against you but rather is an action by the community. Second, I am not a member of the ArbCom. It is a different group than the adminstrators who have handled the matter thus far.

They were presented very selective cherry pick edits, biased, out of context and exaggerated information and based their decision on that. I was not allowed to answer any questions or defend myself. Do you honestly think that I am going to be happy with that and leave when I feel that I was unrightfully blocked? What do you expect?

You are free to give the ArbCom your evidence, to defend yourself, answer their questions, etc.

Apparently that is not true because I have been confined to this page and I am not allowed to post at the arbitration committee like everyone else who contests a ban.

Lastly, your questions about copyrights and any other contributions are moot because you are blocked. To put this into perspective, you are like an illegal immigrant complaining about his Social Security witholding.

I believe that is inaccurate analogy because illegal immigrants are not citizens nor have they ever been. If I had to put it in a more accurate way I would say I am a citizen who is being denied entry back into the country for disputed reasons. Citizens may get in trouble with the law but they are not denied their birthright citizenship and if they are disciplined they are thrown in jail and may appeal their case fairly. Again I do not want to be disruptive and I just want to resolve this issue. I really feel that you are not being fair with me and you are pegging me out to be a horrible guy which is not true.

First resolve your status here, then we can talk about the other matters. -Will Beback 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I merely wanted to defend myself from being portrayed as someone who intentionally put copyrighted violations even though there is absolutely no evidence that I did.

AmericanPatriot29 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You may email members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if you wish to appeal. That is standard procedure for blocked users. The page has a list of arbitrators and their email links. -Will Beback 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was never given a fair trail in the first place. It also doesn't help to know that JayG is in the committee knowing that he is going to spew information and influence the committee towards a ban. He is biased member and shouldn't count. If I am being sued by someone since when do they get to sit on the jury? I don't believe that I would be satisfied with the result and I don't believe that it will be fair. Why cant I just have a re trail with all the evidence presented and be allowed to defend myself? If I am given a fair trail where I am allowed to defend myself completely I will follow the decision and leave permanently if that is the result. But otherwise I don't have a reason to believe that I was treated fairly and that I should do otherwise.

AmericanPatriot29 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You responded several times when your activity was discussed on AN/I, so it is not true that you had no chance to defend yourself. As for cherry-picking the results, naturally the most problematic edits were presented to show the problem. You can certainly get a new hearing in a "higher court" by going to the ArbCom. While our dispute resolution process is not a legal proceding, the ArbCom is our senior body. Since you've already gotten a peer-review from User:Pgk that is the only avenue left. The ArbCom has many members, so no one has special power. I urge you to take your case to them if you think that you have been treated wrongly. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case is an excellent guide. -Will Beback

I will tell you what. I will do that and follow the procedure but I would like to be able to prove my innocence and fix the alleged copyright issues. I am being accused of copyright violations and it is not true. I feel that I should be allowed to at least prove my innocence. May I at least be temporarily unblocked to work with whoever is necessary to find the appropriate tags? You can supervise me and I won't do any other edits other then fixing the copyrights that I am accused of. If you can also tell pgk to please come back and answer my response I would appreciate it.

I would also like to add one thing. I really feel that you should be a little more aware of what you revert. I believe that you think =American Patriot = Bad. Everything American Patriot does = Bad. American Patriot is so bad everything he does need to be reverted. Most editors would at least review what they revert to at least acknowledge if there may be any good edits, remove the bad ones and leave the good regardless of who it is from. This is a more helpful attitude and shows that someone wants to make wikipedia better. This was one of your revisions to my work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Evelyn_Byrd&oldid=58526217

Please look to the awards and decoration section and you will see that there is a considerable amount of vandalism. I removed the vandalism along with some other small edits and you reverted it back to the vandalism page. Technically I can charge you with vandalism. You also reverted some other edits of mine that were harmless and other people even reverted them back. I don’t believe that is helpful. I am not criticizing you but I just think you should know for future references with other people. But don't worry about the vandalism on that page someone already reverted it back.

AmericanPatriot29 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do submit your case to the ArbCom. If they think it has merit they will unblock you so that you can participate fully. It is to them that you need to prove your innocence. Until that time, yes- edits by JJstroker/Jerry Jones/AmericanPatriot29/et al. = "bad". Regarding Pgk, I expect the reason he stopped responding is that you were not addressing the issues he raised and instead you were repeating the points you wanted to make. That is the same as you did in the AN/I. To successfully convince someone of something you have to listen to their objections and respond to them. You've been editing here for at least seven months and you still don't understand the copyright and plagiarism issues, despite numerous complaints about your work. Anyway, tell it to the ArbCom. -Will Beback 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing vandalism and adding a thumbnail to a picture is bad? I believe that I answered all of pgks questions very well in detail so I would like a response. I will inquire about the case to the committee but hopefully they will at least let me explain my edits and then base their decision on that instead of letting me make a statement, review the edits with you and then base their decision on that when I can not participate in the process and give them my side of the story for each edit. I have nothing to hide. Btw that is not true I wasn't able to respond last time. When I made statements I was debating with you not to the committee nor did I address the issues at hand.

AmericanPatriot29 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You found the ArbCom page alright? I'll watch this page in case you have any other questions that I can help you with. -Will Beback 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. Thank you for being a little more understand this time. I just emailed Fred Bauder and requested a review of the case and hopefully we can take it from there. I have a copy of the email I wrote him. Should I send the same email to other committee members as well or just one member? I will be sure to reread the directions but I didn't see an explanation on the page. How long does it usually take to get a case reviewed and when can we start? I just would like to participate this time and review the edits together where I can explain each edit to the committee as opposed to them reviewing what I feel is misleading selective edits where I can not give them my side of the story and defend myself. I believe that I have nothing to hide and there is nothing more that I would like to do then cooperate fully with the arbitration committee if I am able.

AmericanPatriot29 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was clearly ArbCom business I'm sure it will be forwarded to other ArbCom members. About five ArbCom members have to vote to accept the case. That might take a week or two. If they accept the case then you can expect it to take four to six weeks: a couple of weeks for involved parties to present whatever evidence, then a couple of more weeks for the ArbCom to reach a decision. As I mentioned before, if they accept it they would probably unblock you to allow you to participate fully in the case. -Will Beback 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Until such time as the ArbCom makes a decision on your case, please do not edit here. Your attempts to sneak in are obvious and unwelcome. -Will Beback 05:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be penalized? I was never given a fair trail and I am presumed guilty until proven innocent which is unfair. I am just waiting for my case to be reviewed and I have yet to receive an answer. All I did was fix dead links and added a picture what is so bad about that? I see no reason for the edits to have been reverted.

AmericanPatriot29 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:WelchMcCarthy2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:WelchMcCarthy2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

unblock request

A brief scan down shows that (1) this is the sockpuppet of another idefinitely blocked user (2) Language like I'm nearly 100% sure or I couldn't find copyright so I don't think it has any, show you don't understand copyright. 99.999% sure is not good enough, 100% sure is the only option. Copyright is automatic and implicit you don't need to put a (c) on something to own the copyright. As this seems to be an ongoing problem with potentially serious implications for the project I'm not willing to unblock. --pgk^(talk) 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A brief scan

This is exactly what I said to Will Beback and why I didn't want to appeal a block.

(2) Language like I'm nearly 100% sure or I couldn't find copyright so I don't think it has any, show you don't understand copyright.

You selectively pick one quote and ignore the explanations for the others. There is no evidence that these are copyright vios and I said that I would be more then happy to call the websites to get more information. Will Beback even said himself that a considerable number of my photos were not vios.

Copyright is automatic and implicit you don't need to put a (c) on something to own the copyright.

I always take my time to add the correct copyright and if i do not I am more then willing to cooperate and find the appropriate tags. May I at least please be able to go over the copyrights and find the tags? Will Beback also removed several photos that were not copyright vios but if you were to get his side of the story he makes it look like all of them are which is not true. Most of them were not vios nor is there any evidence that any of them are and I that intentionally posted copyrighted photos.

AmericanPatriot29 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked an warned for this before, my quotes were indicative of the general problem. The time to check is before uploading, not after. Your language here further suggests you simply don't understand the issue "There is no evidence that these are copyright vios", read again "copyright is automatic and implicit", the onus is on you when uploading that the images are non-copyvios not the other way around. --pgk^(talk) 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What I am telling you is they are not copyright vios and I explained them. The problem is some moderators feel the need to verify the copyrights (which is fine) and I said I would be more then happy to assist them but I was blocked for alleged copyright violations. This leads me to believe that you are not interested to review the copyrights together to find the appropriate tags if they need to be changed but rather are just using this as an excuse to ban me. There is no proof that there are copyright vios nor is there proof that I intentionally added copyrighted material. It is simply a matter of reviewing the copyrights which is a relatively simple task that I would be more then happy to do as I have done above. I know that many of the photos were not copyright vios and I can prove it. The majority of the photos I did upload I added the appropriate tags and they were not copyright vios. The rest of the photos are simply a matter of verifying the copyrights which I would be more then happy to do. The reason I was blocked was for repeated copyright vios and I merely said that they are not copyright vios and you can not prove that they are. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. I believe that you are not being fair with me.

AmericanPatriot29 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Irving_McNeil_Ives.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Irving_McNeil_Ives.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) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Robert_Clymer_Hendrickson.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Robert_Clymer_Hendrickson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 06:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Johnburroughs22.jpg

The file File:Johnburroughs22.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)