Hi, I'm Trevor. Please feel free to leave me a message

Hi - "The comment from DuncanHill was unhelpful" - which comment - "remove picture of person unconnected with subject"? How is this unhelpful? DuncanHill 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant the comment from JWiamlmeysTNUC (talk)--Meanlevel 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:M a1b76234bb1cccac7e17b26b5d87cfb4.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. east.718 at 12:31, 10/18/2007 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I didn't tag that properly. Can someone help me upload the correct tags to a fair-use image released to the public domain from Interpol? --Meanlevel 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you obtain the image from? I can do all the work for you. Please reply on my talk page, I won't be notified of any messages left here. east.718 at 16:47, 10/18/2007

Ok. Where do I report that you are adding a picture to this Article then? I think it's kind of a problem when someone re-adds a picture of an innocent man to an article of a child molester.

If you really feel that strongly that you are right, and that everyone you are warring with is wrong, you can report this matter at WP:ANI--Meanlevel 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will sure report. Show me the interpol-website or anything else where this picture is posted as being Christopher Paul Neil (there's lots of other pictures of Neil posted on the interpol site) and I will acknowledge my mistake, but for the moment I can't believe people do NOT see the difference. The man on the left is someone else.Avlan 12:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the better picture of the paedo from? I can't find it on Interpol website. You should probably rename it sick fuck.jpg 81.149.250.228 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image you'd been adding to Christopher Paul Neil identifies a living person. You've been asked to provide proof that it is who you say it is, by way of a link to the Interpol website, but you've failed to do so. DO NOT add this image back to the article without providing that proof; if you do so regardless, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture's back... Avlan 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Please don't revert it, let someone else do so. I will be providing sources in due time anyway. Meanlevel 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched it since you reported me. Other people acting now. And I think the correct order is that FIRST you come up with the sources and SECOND you add the picture. Avlan 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I care so much because I think it's pretty sick to 'just' upload a picture of someone, without any proof of it's validity, in an article about a child molester. Maybe you can explain to me why you DON'T careso much about distributing an image, branding the man in that picture a child molester without any proof of the picture actually being him? Avlan 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the man in the picture IS Christopher Paul Neil, and what he did is far more sick than accusing a so-called "innocent" man of his crimes. I'd love to know why you seem to believe the image is of someone else, and why you are so insistant of their innocence. --Meanlevel 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a comment. I tracked that image to commons and the link led to the interpol website [1]. The image is on the website and is identified as Christopher Paul Neil.--Sandahl 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. You tracked a different image, one that's still on the article, one over which no-one has any problem. The image discussed above is entirely different, isn't on the interpol page, and that Meanlevel can't (or won't) provide a source for. I explained all this hours ago ago at WP:AN/I#Wrong_picture : Christopher Paul Neil. -- 17:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlay McWalter (talk • contribs)

You are entirely right. I see that, my bad.--Sandahl 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your editing, your contributions, and your obvious status as an account created by an experienced user intended solely to create trouble, this account has been indefinitely blocked. Neil ☎ 14:08, 19 October 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

"Given your editing, your contributions, and your obvious status as an account created by an experienced user intended solely to create trouble, this account has been indefinitely blocked." - that is the single most preposterous thing I've ever heard

Decline reason:

You have provided no reason to believe this is not true. — Yamla 15:15, 19 October 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't understand. I have not being editing in a trolling fasion. If you check my edits you will see that I have been complying with wikipedia policy and if anything have been trying to ensure that others have not been abusing such regulations as well. Apparently, the fact that I have been editing competently has been used as evidence that I should be indefinitely blocked- I don't quite follow the logic there.

Decline reason:

Repeatedly adding an unconfirmed image of a living person to an article about an accused pedophile is disruptive. You don't seem to understand what was wrong with your actions, nor do you appear to show any indication of stopping with them. Regardless of whether or not you're another user, which given your suspicious familiarity with Wikipedia is likely, your behavior is totally uncalled for. — Haemo 18:42, 19 October 2007 (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.