User talk:Spost8260

Frankie Burke Bio Information
I have just restored an entire paragraph you deleted without even citing a reason. If you have an issue with the inference that Burke may have imitated Cagney in the 1970s, I guess I can understand that, but it's undisputed that Burke did experience a bad divorce, and shortly thereafter chose to live for several decades as a transient. There seems to be no clear reason that you deleted this information. I should remind you that Wikipedia is intended to be an online Encyclopedia and deleting information without a rational explanation isn't proper conduct here. If you did so in order to whitewash embarrassing information from Mr Burke's biography, that may admirable in some respects, but Wiki users expect concise, complete and fair information. If you want to post a sanitized version of Mr. Burke's biography on your personal site, that's fine, but as far as I understand, that isn't what Wiki is about. If you would like to discuss this, I will be happy to discuss this. Please do not delete the paragraph until we can work this out. Thank you. -Yakofujimato  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi...I've been researching Mr. Burke for over five years. I have an online enemy who likes to go behind me everywhere and slander Mr. Burke because she knows its only more work for me to change it. The fact is, there is absolutely NO proof at all that Mr. Burke "mooched for meals" as is claimed on her original entry to this page (username BillyHalop). It is true that he was a transient during the last twenty years of his life. However, the other information is incorrect/unproven. Thats why I deleted it. I did not delete the entire entry by this other user, only the unproven part. Also, I don't understand why the photo was removed...I've already proved once before that this photo belonged to the family, they own the rights on this image and I have written permission in which I can happily scan for you for the record. However, I will only do that in private. This person has already contacted the family via email, upsetting them, from the publicly posted email I gave as contact information. By defending this persons abuse of Wikipedia, you're only hindering the process of legitimate information. And this is clear and utter abuse...she does it everywhere, not just here. There is already a pending legal case against this person by the family. I strongly urge you to at least keep her from flagging, uploading or adding anything to this site. Her unfair and utterly WRONG information being placed back on this page smacks of favoritism...you could have easily went to his website and read this article for yourself...there is a question mark and no names mentioned. There is no proof at all that the Cagney impersonator was actually Mr. Burke. In fact, according to his ex-wife, Mr. Burke was in Los Angeles, CA in 1972. But I cannot prove her word anymore than the article can prove it was Mr. Burke in Miami, FLA, in 1972. And this is where she gets the IDEA from. (Thats all it is...an idea. There is legitimately NO PROOF). Also, his divorce was not a "bitter" one. It was completely amicable. And it did not take place until the late 1940s (I have information from personal family letters and from family themselves that I do not display on his website for this specific reason. This person only takes what is actually on my website and twists it horribly and most of it isn't even the truth. Spost8260 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)spost8260


 * I've removed the helpme template. If you have a question, re add it but clearly state your question(s). - Rjd0060 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the photo I uploaded of Billy Halop can stay. I've been studying the help pages, copyright pages, image uploading pages and I think I've done everything correctly. If anyone finds fault, please let me know what I need to do to make it remain. Thank you. Spost8260 05:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)spost8260

Don't post nonsense to wikipedia.

Do it again and I will block you from editing. RickK 04:14, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You were repeatedly creating fictional work about a fictional person, linking to a fictional website, and loading a picture misidentified as that fictional person. RickK 04:39, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Response
You didnt have to delete my whole page! I was trying to add to the "Famous Red Heads" section. Frankie Burke IS a famous red head, even though YOU may have ever heard about him. What is your problem? You seem drunk with power! I was only trying to make my page look nice, but, what? If someone doesnt add something YOU dont agree with you delete their work?????? Pardon me, but I had no clue Wikipedia was run by dictatorial hitlerites!!! I did NOTHING wrong!! You just have nothing better to do than set on your computer and abuse your athority because it personally makes YOU feel good! It givese you a rush to push someone around! You could have AT LEAST told me what your personal problem was! I did NOTHING wrong but you want to threaten me with banning me from editing and then delete my page! Watching for troublemakers is one thing...totally abusing your authority is another! Dont think I'm not going to make it public to eveyone I know how this place is being run. Potential additions are all lost because you have to act like a Nazi!

You are SO wrong!!!!
Frankie Burke is NOT fictional and if you had a brain in your head, you'd see that he has a page on the Internet Movie Database! He is QUITE real! Youre only abusing your power! You have a serious mental deficiency!

Personal attacks are also not tolerated on Wikipedia. And for somebody who claims to be new, you were pretty quick to find aplace to go to for help, weren't you? You decided to go to other users and the AMA page instead of either posting here or asking me what the problem was. No:
 * 1) If this person really exists, can you point to a source for your information?
 * 2) If this person really exists, why does the website you link to not work?
 * 3) If this person really exists, what is the source of the photograph you uploaded, and what is its copyright status?

Note: I don't deal with trolls, so if you refuse to discuss this in a reasonable manner and answer my questions, consider this my last discussion with you in this matter. RickK 04:50, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Here ya go!
1. Source for my information?  2. Who knows why it doesnt work for you? It seems to work for everyone else. Its or you can link to it from his IMDB page at 3. The photo I copied from the internet, then cropped to show Burke, since he was not the only onw in the photo. It is a DVD cover for his film, "Boys of the city" and it is the only photo I have that is NOT in public domain! No one holds the copywrite to it! I've already covered this in two different discussion groups, and 4. So pardon ME for learning a little more swiftly than YOU may have thought I should! If you look at my status, you'll see I only joined a little while ago.

I can discuss a situation rationally when I am dealing with a rational person. Instead of jumping in with threats, you could have patiently explained what I was doing wrong. Instead of deleting my page, you could have asked for proof FIRST. Nope. You just jumped right on in there and exerted your authority before even finding out for yourself that Frankie Burke is, actually, a real person, even though you havent personally heard about him. Do YOU think thats fair?

Apology
Wow. I really owe you an apology, and I will humbly do it here. I made a major mistake, and I hope you will not take my fumblehanded attempt at keeping Wikipedia right as a reflection of all of the other sysops. I will restore your work, but I can't restore the picture, so if you can reupload it (and it isn't a copyright violation), please do so. I am very sorry. RickK 04:54, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Accepted
I accept your apology. And I offer my own. I was in shock...I had never been attacked so heartily before. Thank you for restoring the page. I completely understand and appreciate your position of keeping this site clean and free from abuse. I only wished you would have asked for proof, first and given more of an explaination of your actions. I would have gladly assisted you. The photograph is from a movie that has been proved to be in public domain. I would ahve liked to use another I had, but that is from a film that is copywrite protected. This was all I had. It is from the Monogram Studios 1940 "Boys of the City". I hope all will be well, now. I only want to contribute...not destroy.

However ...
"UnderAppreciated Actor " isn't appropriate. For one thing, it's a point of view, which we deprecate. For another thing, it's a title under the title, which is not Wikipedia style. RickK 05:24, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Okay...
I understand and have no complaint, but I have a question. Why can I not post a link to his website...or should I only put a link to his IMDB page?

Did you check that link? It goes to a page of unused websites for sale. RickK 21:29, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Response to your posting on the AMA Coordinator page
Thank you for posting on the AMA Coordinator page, however that is not the appropriate place to make a complaint. We are a voluntary organization that tries to help others, Wikipedia members or not who are facing problems on Wikipedia. The Coordinator's page is really a place for members of the association to communicate with me about member issues, not to ask for help or to place a statement about one's problem. It is more appropriate, as you later found out, to try and deal with the other person involved directly and try to work your problem out and then become involved with the dispute resolution process. If you are having problems understanding that process or need help of someone to help you get your point across, then post a request on the AMA Requests for Assistance page. Hope that helps. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or through the AMA if you need more assistance. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   17:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Billy Halop Online - Promos (2).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Billy Halop Online - Promos (2).jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:FRANKIEBURKEPERSONAL4.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:FRANKIEBURKEPERSONAL4.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:FRANKIEBURKEPERSONAL4.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:FRANKIEBURKEPERSONAL4.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)