User talk:S.S. Miami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).

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

Request reason:

I will tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing But the truth. I am Bialytock&Bloom. I was unaware of the laws on sockpuppetry, and realize that what I did it completely wrong. I created the new account because I was worried editors would only see me as "S.S. Miami" and label me as "unreliable". Bialytock&Bloom gave me a new start, and I, if I say so myself, successfully expanded several articles. I am truly sorry for my actions. However, if I am unblocked, I would like "Bialytock&Bloom" to be unblocked as well, as that account has the pages I edit a lot on it's watchlist. You can delete this "S.S. Miami" account, as I'd rather be Bialytock&Bloom. After the deletion of this account and the unblocking of the other account, if I am found guilty of sockpuppetry again, I will gladly and willingly except any punishments you wish to inflict. I would like to just point out that I never used the two accounts with any malicious intent (ie: winning debates, etc.)

Decline reason:

The sockpuppetry itself is bad enough, but after the continued lies at User talk:Bialytock&Bloom, I see no reason to assume good faith anymore and cannot endorse the unblock of this account or any of its sockpuppets (and certainly not both). --Kinu t/c 20:56, 4 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think I've provided a reasonable "deal", or whatever you wish to call it. You just delete S.S. Miami, unblock Bialytock&Bloom, and it's no longer sockpuppetry. I'm basically telling you to stop sockpuppetry. I would like to point out again that I never used the two accounts with any malicious intent and am truly sorry for my actions.

Decline reason:

Not a chance, especially since you've insisted that you'll attempt to use your talk page to continue to evade your block. -- Atama頭 23:01, 4 May 2011 (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.

As I have already declined one unblock request, I will leave the current one to another administrator, but I will comment. What I see is this: you broke copyright policies using this account, created another account, continued the same type of behavior there, and attempted to lie your way out of it after getting caught until just recently. Why should we assume good faith again? Blocking both accounts protects the encyclopedia from further violations of copyright policy... a policy which you apparently have no intention of following, based on your actions at not one but two accounts. To be frank, I don't see you as being in a position to make any sort of deal... you're the one who's blocked two times over, and with very good reason. --Kinu t/c 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the incident with the copyright from Bialytock&Bloom, you can see that I understand and let the images get deleted, and then not upload a bad image. I made a terrible mistake, and just want to bypass that and continue editing. As you can see from the Bialytock&Bloom account's contributions, I have been very helpful sans the image problems. In addition to the "deal", after all of that is said and done, is there a way where you can block someone from uploading images, but not from editing?--S.S. Miami (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did you *let* those images get deleted, given that you had no choice? And why is that specific example any different from any of the others from your lengthy history of problematic file uploads? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Can someone get User:JeanColumbia to:

  1. Revert this edit
  2. Add an "s" at the end of "Tony Award" here
  3. Fix Beth Leavel after this edit: the part about her Tony nomination
  4. Update Joshua Henry in the paragraph about The Scottsboro Boys (he is a 2011 Tony nominee), and also update this article based on the Tony nominations
  5. Update The Scottsboro Boys (musical) with these:[1][2]
  6. update Lombardi (play) with this:[3]

Despite being blocked, I will continue to expand and improve Wikipedia from my talk page.--S.S. Miami (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you won't. That's considered block evasion and is not allowed. In addition, anyone who acts on your behalf can possibly be considered a meatpuppet, depending on the circumstances, and might be subject to he same sanctions as before. This is just another example of your attempts to get around your block rather than abiding by Wikipedia policies. Consider this a warning that if you misuse your talk page again, your talk page privileges can also be revoked. -- Atama頭 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were clearly informed that your talk page privileges could be revoked if you continue misusing your talk page; removing the warning does not make it acceptable to try to get other users to edit on your behalf. Since you need help in accepting that you are blocked, I am disabling this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next sockpuppet is possibly StryoFome. I not digged here to find out what the user made wrong, but I know that StryoFome is doing copyright violations on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Mamma_Rose is another sock that appeared yesterday - all but one of the pages edited so far have also been edited by either User:Bialytock&Bloom and/or User:StryoFome; very first edit shows he/she knows how to revert edits.86.138.46.178 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mamma_Rose is definitely another sock of User:S.S. Miami.
Hi. I wouldn't make such accusations without requesting a checkuser investigation. I'm good at editing because I edited as an IP adress for quite some time before creating an account. It said I was "editing on Wikipedia for a while" because that is the default message. I saw this page from your contributions, and a slip of the mouse led me to do a "undo vandalism" button on Twinkle. I find it interesting that an IP with no previous contributions suddenly decides to accuse another user of sockpuppetry without doing much research. --Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!United States) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't know what you're talking about on Commons. I told an admin to delete the Addams Family one because Commons didn't allow it; Wikipedia does. And the other one is my own image. All of these points are very weak. I don't want to be directly involved with this, so I'll just watch how this turns out. You might want to request a checkuser investigation before making these types of accusations.--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!United States) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand when you say "I saw this page from your contributions", presumably to explain how you came to see this page. Why would you be looking at my contributions when my above edit was the very first one listed, apart from a 2006 one? There were no previous contributions I'd made that would have alerted you to my editing. That excuse doesn't wash. You were watching this page, because you are User:S.S. Miami/User:Bialytock&Bloom/User:StryoFome, and you saw my edit that way. And as for the 'slip of the mouse' excuse - don't make me laugh. You've lied your socks off before; why should we believe you now? 86.133.51.89 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit on FisherQueen is easily found by searching "Mamma Rose", and that's what led me here. And don't act like you know you're right without actually using evidence. If you use Checkuser, you will see I am not S.S. Miami. Do you even know about my old mouse? That thing gets jammed so often you have to shake it to fix it, and while I shook it I accidentally clicked on the "Undo vandalism." Once again: use checkuser.--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!United States) 16:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S.S. Miami[edit]

Those watching this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S.S. Miami. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rogerbart.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rogerbart.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Empireworldtoweratnight.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Empireworldtoweratnight.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. Mosmof (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pentominiumdubai.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Pentominiumdubai.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Easter Rising (musical)[edit]

Hi, I'm Jackson Peebles. S.S. Miami, thanks for creating Easter Rising (musical)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I highly recommend adding categories to this article to make it more accessible!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Proposed deletion of Don't spill the beans (idiom)[edit]

The article Don't spill the beans (idiom) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dicdef, no sourcing found

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Don't spill the beans (idiom) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Don't spill the beans (idiom) 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/Don't spill the beans (idiom) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Looped.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Looped.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Easter Rising (musical) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Easter Rising (musical) 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/Easter Rising (musical) 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. Boneymau (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Prisonersoflove.jpg[edit]

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

image with no coresponding article on subject

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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:AddamsFamilyOCR.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AddamsFamilyOCR.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Damac heights 1.jpg[edit]

Notice

The file File:Damac heights 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fair use image with free replacement

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) 01:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Damac heights 1.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Damac heights 1.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:IgorYF.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IgorYF.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Looped.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Looped.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thehareliks.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thehareliks.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S.S._Miami&oldid=1141995598"