User talk:Jcpag2012

Archives

2013 2014

Why did you remove the lead image I added without at least saying why? There is an open discussion on the talk page about it. Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....A2soup remove the lead image. Thanks! --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Squidward's School for Grown-Ups.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Millennium Remake 1.21 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.demonews.com/download.php?det=3117#.VO2Bm-H3YUo. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BethNaught (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm...... --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You change and add a lot of images, which is great, but I think that other editors (including myself) are sometimes confused about the rationale behind your changes. Since we don't know why you change the images, we are more likely to revert your changes. Would it be possible to leave edit summaries briefly explaining why you are changing or adding images in the future? Thanks :) A2soup (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not touch these articles of the Solar System because it's okay. Right. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 06:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean don't touch them. I mean touch them, but just say why you did :) A2soup (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding such nonsense images as you did to 2004 XR190 and 2060 Chiron. They serve absolutely no purpose. --JorisvS (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please quit inserting images from Celestia that just use a meaningless generic texture to create an image. They add no value to the article and could mislead people into thinking we know more about these objects than we do. -- Kheider (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astronomy Picture of the Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this image is not in natural color, just like the other one (I do agree with your edit, though). They do look more natural than this one, even though all three have been made using the same extreme ultraviolet wavelength (30.4 nm). --JorisvS (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Jcpag2012/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BenLinus1214^talk 02:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Planets (video), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168125/plotsummary.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked (by multiple editors) to stop putting those nonsense images into those articles, yet you simply continue. Why? --JorisvS (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously it's a meaningless artist's impressions, just okay for that. Thanks :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 00:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pluto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can only use copyright materials under certain conditions, and one of them is that we use low res versions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per your comment on my talk page, we already have a low res version of the image. we cannot use high res versions of copyright materials. please read WP:FAIR and WP:COPYRIGHT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uranus from Keck Telescope in 2004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whale of a Birthday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Planetary Mass Objects in the Solar System and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - regarding File:Neptune_orbiter.jpg, can I ask what the actual source is? I see you gave credit to NASA, but the source you gave is an image file from DavidDarling.info. In the image's upload history, you specified that the image came from a PDF. Can you update the source to the PDF, which should also show that the image is from NASA? Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been welcoming well-established users and placing irrelevant template warnings on the talk page of an editor who has been blocked for months. If you're experimenting, you need to do so in a sandbox. Otherwise, I'd cut back on the template/welcome messages until you know what's up with them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: I will not do that again, thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 07:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eris Explorer, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ioss.ca/ErisExplorer.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above article was deleted as an obvious copyright violation. Eris Explorer is not a real mission but a simulation ([1]), as is everything else on that website.

Also, that's your third copyright violation this year. One more and you will be blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do not do that again, thanks. :) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded a high-resolution version of File:IC 1101, telescope image.jpg. Non-free images must be of a minimal size, typically no more than 400px. You were blocked on Commons for image violations, and have received multiple warnings here for the same. I would strongly suggest that you no longer involve yourself with images on Wikipedia. If you continue to cause disruptions, you may very well find yourself blocked here as well. I'm happy to discuss these issues with you if you are willing, but stop messing around with images, since it is clear that you do not understand policies and procedures, both here and on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SpaceBob InvaderPants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceBob InvaderPants until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Mediran [talk] 01:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:FPC. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Consider this your second warning. Familiarize yourself with the criteria, and avoid striking other editors' comments. An unwillingness to do both is quite disruptive.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WP:FPC. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Again, you have added second and third votes to pages. This is disruptive. Take a break, learn the process, or face sanctions.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing. You have been warned repeatedly to behave in an appropriate manner, but you seem to not be capable of doing so. In particular, you act as if your edits to images cannot be touched by others, and you have been repeatedly warned that your photoshopping of certain images is inappropriate as well. I've come to the conclusion that WP:COMPETENCE and possibly language barriers are major issues here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Huntster (t @ c) 23:36, 11 June 2015 (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).

Jcpag2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Huntster, please, follow the rules , do not do that again, I promise. Thank you. :) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 04:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2015 (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.

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).

Jcpag2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Block indefinite is too long. Huntster, please, follow the rules , do not do that again, I promise. Thank you and unblock me. :) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:14, 12 June 2015 (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.

I am an administrator, and I am declining your emailed unblock request because you did not address the reasons why you are blocked. Merely stating "I need help to edit" is not going to hold muster. MER-C 13:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeatedly email me that you 'need help editing', but you've been blocked because you have serious competency issues: you were mostly just creating a lot of work for other editors. I happen to fully agree with the block. --JorisvS (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to email other users asking to be unblocked, I will remove your ability to use that feature. Any requests for unblocking should be done on this talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have continued to abuse the email function, I've removed your ability to use it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already I read it, thanks. :-) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 09:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your unblock request. You were advised to read WP:GAB to understand what you need to do in requesting an unblock. Instead you pasted it into an unblock request and basically instructed a reviewing admin to read the guideline, then unblock you. This shows you have serious competency issues. It is highly likely your next unblock request will be your last as a reviewing admin may revoke your access to your talk page. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already read WP:GAB. Thanks. :-) --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 22:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Jcpag2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To make people trust you again. Don't do it again.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=To make people trust you again. Don't do it again. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=To make people trust you again. Don't do it again. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=To make people trust you again. Don't do it again. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}