 |
|
What is the story with this editor? Is he a sock? If so, why has he not been blocked? I've just reverted several edits he's made, so I'd like to know more, please. Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure why my contributions "isn't a ref". Please clarify. What I was trying to show was that the Bucket reference has an antecedent in British comedy. Thank you. Spycoops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, ScrapIronIV. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir/ Madam, I am Daniel Hatem and had made those claims of drawing the Blue Lantern in the 80's as I had as a young College student artist for the College paper and comic. It was published as I had indicated and had only wished the citation of the initial drawing be made. It was never for commercial purposes as it was a college comic but the truth as to the date and source of the drawing should be noted. Since I received nothing from anybody for this and it was not in a for profit publication, I was only interested in the notation for the TRUTH. The other artist might have commercialized the character, I had published it first. I asked this as I am sick of the lies as to the initial drawing dates and artist. You have the proof in the Heights Newspaper that has been available at Boston College and is still in publication. Merely noting that his was the first commercial publication is adequate but MINE was the first drawing of this Character and was published in a commonly read newspaper archived . You can make note of this anywhere you like but the claims that he was the first artist to draw it are provably false. I give credit to him for his commercial use, but my publication was of this character and it was first. The claim that commercial purposes are the only noted ones are wrong. All I asked for is the truthful notation of the origin. Where or when he draw his rendition is irrelevant to my claim as mine was drawn first. Thank you for hearing me out. Please just give credit where credit is due. If DC wishes to sue, they can collect exactly ZERO as that is all I got for this publication then and in royalties. Just stick with the truth as that is all I asked. Thank you for hearing me out. If you wish people to trust Wikipedia, make it truthful. On this topic it is not yet correctly noted. Please handle this as you wish. I said my peace and the truth is there to see. Thanks, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8700:D610:41AD:930:8F66:450A ( talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
this [1]? If so, you may want to read this [2]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
|
|
|
What is the story with this editor? Is he a sock? If so, why has he not been blocked? I've just reverted several edits he's made, so I'd like to know more, please. Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure why my contributions "isn't a ref". Please clarify. What I was trying to show was that the Bucket reference has an antecedent in British comedy. Thank you. Spycoops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, ScrapIronIV. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir/ Madam, I am Daniel Hatem and had made those claims of drawing the Blue Lantern in the 80's as I had as a young College student artist for the College paper and comic. It was published as I had indicated and had only wished the citation of the initial drawing be made. It was never for commercial purposes as it was a college comic but the truth as to the date and source of the drawing should be noted. Since I received nothing from anybody for this and it was not in a for profit publication, I was only interested in the notation for the TRUTH. The other artist might have commercialized the character, I had published it first. I asked this as I am sick of the lies as to the initial drawing dates and artist. You have the proof in the Heights Newspaper that has been available at Boston College and is still in publication. Merely noting that his was the first commercial publication is adequate but MINE was the first drawing of this Character and was published in a commonly read newspaper archived . You can make note of this anywhere you like but the claims that he was the first artist to draw it are provably false. I give credit to him for his commercial use, but my publication was of this character and it was first. The claim that commercial purposes are the only noted ones are wrong. All I asked for is the truthful notation of the origin. Where or when he draw his rendition is irrelevant to my claim as mine was drawn first. Thank you for hearing me out. Please just give credit where credit is due. If DC wishes to sue, they can collect exactly ZERO as that is all I got for this publication then and in royalties. Just stick with the truth as that is all I asked. Thank you for hearing me out. If you wish people to trust Wikipedia, make it truthful. On this topic it is not yet correctly noted. Please handle this as you wish. I said my peace and the truth is there to see. Thanks, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8700:D610:41AD:930:8F66:450A ( talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
this [1]? If so, you may want to read this [2]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)