User talk:Bialytock&Bloom

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Theatre Scarborough; Veanne Cox; Ambassador Theatre Group; A Life in the Theatre; The Joneses; GOL Sniper Magnum; Josefina Scaglione; The Against All Odds Tour; Tiara Records; Miami Medical; Charles Edwards (English actor); Danielle Staub; NAACP Theatre Awards; Matthew Sklar; Bob Martin (comedian); Bloomsbury Theatre; Forrest Theatre; Deb Fordham; Gabourey Sidibe

Cleanup: Penobscot Theatre Company; Levi Kreis; Zanna, Don't!
Merge: Joe Cassidy; Introduction to quantum mechanics; Enchanted (film)
Add Sources: Playbill; Oliver!; Patti LuPone
Wikify: David Rogers; The Piano Lesson; The Kingsmen
Expand: Doctor of Philosophy; Two Gentlemen of Verona (musical); Richard Bean

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Bialytock&Bloom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

98.64.156.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "S.S. Miami". The reason given for S.S. Miami's block is: "User has demonstrated that they are unwilling to abide by our copyright policies.".

Blocking administrator: J Milburn (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Now blocked directly as a checkuser confirmed sock of S.S. Miami. TN X Man 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the person who was using User:S.S. Miami? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "using"? --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

User:Tnxman307 just blocked me indefinitely without discussion. Can SOMEONE please have a BRAIN and stop this? And besides, even if I was S.S. Miami, what edits have a made that are bad? --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'bad' edits are the ones that violate Wikipedia's copyright policy- I see you were doing that with both accounts. Thank you for reporting this account so it could be permanently blocked. Do you have any other accounts? If so, please list them below. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What copyright issues have I done!? What bad edits have I made? What vandalism have I done? YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWERS!!! I am being abused! Since when is Wikipedia a war zone to innocent people who just wish to share their knowledge with others??? --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the copyright rules were explained to you more than once at User:S.S. Miami. In fact, you had been blocked for breaking those rules three times already, so you knew how important it was to understand and follow them. If you still don't understand them, that's a good reason to block you- it isn't possible to follow a rule you don't understand. There's no abuse there. Copyright is the law, and Wikipedia has to follow that law- we can't permit people who break it to continue using the web site. Don't worry; there are lots of other web sites on the Internet that you can enjoy. If you ever do come to understand copyright policy more thoroughly, you can request an unblock at your original account (you won't ever be permitted to have two accounts), explaining specifically what the rules you broke were and what you'd do differently in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you can only say bad things S.S. Miami has done. You have no proof that I, Bialytock&Bloom, have done bad edits or anything. I suggest checking facts before making accusations. And, I only have one account. The block summary says that this IP adress was recently used by S.S. Miami. Did it ever occur to you whether or not that editor still has that? I find this an obstruction of justice, as even if I was S.S. Miami, Bialytock&Bloom has done nothing wrong: no bad edits, uploads, or vandalism. You seem to be a sensible person, but you have made an error. I you unblock me, I won't report this abuse of powers. And, for a fact, right before you blocked me, I was trying to fix external links on an article. Meanwhile, while you are arguing with me, you could be preventing vandalism and unsourced additions to biographies like I have done.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you think that lying is an acceptable way to deal with your errors. Is that the way you cope with your mistakes in real life, too? It really doesn't work; people can tell, and you look worse than you would if you were simply a person who made a mistake. I won't help you get back onto Wikipedia, but I encourage you, the next time you find yourself in a real-world situation like this, to take responsibility for what you did wrong, and work to do better. In the long run, it gives you a better life and makes you a better person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not lying. I am only trying to be a good person and improve Wikipedia, but I can't do that if I'm in "prison." And I find your comments ("Is that the way you cope with your mistakes in real life, too?") to be very rude. Is that how you deal with your problems: pretend you have reasons to do things?--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, goodbye, then. I hope you're a child- this kind of behavior- lying about what you've done wrong, not realizing how obvious it is to others- is normal behavior that most children outgrow. If you're an adult, this is a character problem that you really must solve if you want to be a person others can respect. What you've done at Wikipedia would result in your getting fired from most jobs. I wish you luck in correcting your character flaw, but for help with that, you need a philosopher or a psychologist- it's way beyond what I'm able to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you still think I'm lying, then you are wrong. I am an honest person. I would reveal who I really am, but you would think I'm lying. If you want to be a hypocritical waste, then so be it. Just know that I have done nothing wrong, and plan to find someone who can listen and be reasonable. I guess Wikipedia is a place where people can "lie" to each other and start arguments for no reason.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rory O'Malley

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can someone fix the external links from Rory O'Malley, the IMDB and the IBDB links are formatted wrong, and they need the ID number. I would do it myself (which was what I was trying to do before I was blocked), but I am in no position to do so right now.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the template coding, but they're the right links. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you write it as [put link here Rory O'Malley] at the Internet Movie Database.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I used {{IMDb name}} and {{IBDB name}} as is usually done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not S.S. Miami, nor am I associated with this person. I only wish to be free of this so I can continue to improve Wikipedia, which I have done in the past, as anyone can clearly see from my contributions.

Decline reason:

Checkuser has confirmed you are S.S. Miami. More unblock requests will result in the loss of talk page access.—GFOLEY FOUR— 22:41, 1 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.

I've restored this declined request, which you removed. Don't do that again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, accident. --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Bialytock&Bloom (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. I am not S.S. Miami. But, I do know S.S. Miami. We are college roommates. To save money, we use the same laptop. When I started using Wikipedia, he began to use it less for fear that people would think I was him. But they do now, and I just want to return to my normal editing duties.

Every day, I check Playbill and The New York Times for news so I can update theater articles.
I check my watchlist for vandalism or unsourced edits.
I constantly return to my watchlist during the day.
I fix formatting errors and seek to improve articles.
I have no history of vandalism or copyright problems (S.S. Miami does).

Look at all these pages I've helped improve:

Today, I was abused by an admin (FisherQueen called me a liar and a child). This is my first time being blocked, and it is for something I didn't even do.

As anyone can see from my contributions, I have made do bad edits or done anything wrong.

I only hope that someone can put this incident behind us, and I swear on my life I will try my best (not S.S. Miami's best) to be a good editor and image uploader. Thank you for your response.

Decline reason:

After your repeated lies, why should we suddenly believe this new story? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 2 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.

What lies? It's not even a "new" story; that's my only story, and it's the truth. --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never lied before. You have no reason not to believe me. Just as people like User:JeanColumbia or the editors over at Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Sockpuppetry is wrong and I would never do something like that. Please read this and this.
I have been only helpful to Wikipedia, as shown by these articles: Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, Baby It's You!, A Little Princess (Lippa musical), Betty Blue Eyes, Doug Besterman, Frankenstein – A New Musical, Good People (play), Handspring Puppet Company, Johnny Baseball (musical), Joshua Henry, Larry Hochman, Miss 1917, Rachel deBenedet, Peter and the Starcatchers (play), Rory O'Malley, Robert Kidd, Rose Hemingway, The Frogs (musical), The Philanthropist (play), The Motherfucker With the Hat, The Importance of Being Earnest (2011 film), and Toby Sedgwick.
Just look at my contributions, and you can tell that I am nothing but helpful in improving and expanding Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

That's as may be, but the S.S. Miami account was blocked for repeated violations of our policies. Accordingly, any accounts confirmed to be the same user as S.S. Miami are also blocked. We have no way to tell who sits behind the keyboard, all we know is that this account edits from the same computer and uses the same internet connection as the blocked S.S. Miami. That's sufficient cause for the block. Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:47, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

Please read this and this. It explains everything. And you can also look at my contributions. That speaks for itself. If anything, could my block at least have an expiration date?

Decline reason:

I'm just not buying it. This account was created right around one of SSM's earlier blocks, and then began to edit heavily right after the long block in December. The accounts have edited more than 50 articles together, including some obscure ones like Skip Hinnant, where both updated information on his brother Bill. In your request, you've linked to a policy, which you seem to have misread; none of the conditions there apply. You've also linked to a policy, which does not seem to apply. You have been identified through very specific behavioral evidence, including behaviors against policy, and very specific technical evidence. You have also shown that you have trouble telling the truth. The fact that you are evading this block through an IP even now shows that your integrity is in question. I don't see any reason to reverse this block; it seems to be preventing the problems we're seeking to avoid. As this is your fifth unblock request, and you don't seem to be saying anything new, I've disabled your access to this talk page. You can request further review from Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC, but I do not see anything else that can be reviewed here. Kuru (talk) 15:03, 3 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.

Comment: I'd like to echo what jpgordon has been saying. In your first unblock request, you stated I am not S.S. Miami, nor am I associated with this person. Here is the diff to support it. In your second unblock request, you stated I will tell the truth. I am not S.S. Miami. But, I do know S.S. Miami. We are college roommates. To save money, we use the same laptop.. Here's the diff to support it. Wouldn't this in turn make you associated to S.S. Miami? In turn, wouldn't this invalidate your first statement making the first statement a lie? The roommate story is not the only story you stated then. Given this, is there a reason we should trust you considering that you initially gave a false statement. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was embarrassed to be associated with such an editor, but, with no other choice, I needed to tell the truth to clear my name.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you were embarrassed, it's always important to tell the truth to keep yourself trustworthy. Lying only worsens the situation. If it's private, you also have the option of emailing an administrator regarding the situation. I'm willing to AGF but I'd like some input from more editors first. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info!--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't believe this user. The two accounts have similar interests and both have uploaded images improperly. The 'roommate' story only emerged after it became obvious that the earlier story wasn't going to work. Both accounts lie when it seems to be advantageous. There is very little doubt in my mind that this is the same person. I predict that, if this account is unblocked, we'll soon need to block it for the same copyright violations in image uploading. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't uploaded any bad images! What are you talking about? And don't you think I would learn a lesson after being blocked and stop?--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Deleted contributions" log shows a number of file uploads that were deleted for violations of non-free use policy, and your Talk page history shows a number of deletion notifications which you blanked - eg see this past version -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Those are the only ones and I quickly learned from that. That's why I let them get deleted!--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when you said "I haven't uploaded any bad images!", that was another lie, yes? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, blocked users are not allowed to edit without logging in; please desist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it isn't already painfully obvious, User:S.S. Miami admits that this their sockpuppet here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rose-hemingway.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Rose-hemingway.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Dougbesterman.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Dougbesterman.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/06/doug-besterman-new-king-of-orchestrations/. As a copyright violation, File:Dougbesterman.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Dougbesterman.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Dougbesterman.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Dougbesterman.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Dougbesterman.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward

Hi, just in case you did not see this at the other page:

I think you could be a good editor and a good member of the WP community. Why don't you stop fighting the admins and get their guidance on the right way to proceed? You may need to take a cooling off period, but then you could come back fresh and become a respected member of the community. Others have done so! Talk to an admin and get their advice on how to proceed. Perhaps a mentoring relationship.... Good luck. --Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Peterstarcatcherplay.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peterstarcatcherplay.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) 04:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bengaltigerbroadway.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bengaltigerbroadway.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) 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]