User talk:Brinstar
Image tagging for Image:Empress1.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Empress1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Autoblocks
[edit]Looks like you are on a shared address with a vandal. If you aren't planning on editing pages in the next 24 hours, there's no reason to be unblocked. You can still read all the articles without issue. If you are trying to read one and get the blocked message, it is because that article does not exist and Wikipedia thinks you are trying to edit it. Remaining autoblocked does not look bad on your record or anything like that. So, feel free to request unblock-auto if you are planning on editing but if not, it's probably not worth your time. The block will be lifted automatically in 24 hours. :) --Yamla 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Autoblock II
[edit]
Hi, I've tagged this image for speedy deletion because it seems to be a duplicate of Image:T22.jpg. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, the caption must be fully descriptive for copyright reasons - it must enable the picture to add information to the article. Your caption is better dramatically, but not descriptively.--Rambutan (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We can only have one picture per page, that's the rule. The current one sets the scene, which is something words cannot do. Words can - and do - describe the plot. Try asking on the article's talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what policy it's under, but it's been the rule for as long as I can remember. Try WP:WHO, WP:MOS, WP:NFCC and WP:IMAGE.--Rambutan (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Doctor42.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Doctor42.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
WP:NFCC and 42 (Doctor Who)
[edit]As far as 42 (Doctor Who) is concerned, I pretty much don't mind which image is used for the plot. But trying to force two images on the article in order to save the one you uploaded from deletion is certainly not good practice. Minimal use means exactly that: unless you can clearly demonstrate an article needs two illustrations, one will do.
Please don't make a repeat of this sort of thing. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this edit[1]: the image appears to have been deleted (see Image:Doctor42.jpg), so it was quite reasonable for Someguy0830 to switch to the alternative. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I was offline earlier this week, so I can't say for sure. Were all the relevant tags removed? If it was still tagged as unused, the admin may not have checked further. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it appears to be back. Did you sort out what happened? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Open up the discussion again on the talk page (start a new section).In the mean time, I'll have a word with the IP. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)- I'm starting a new subsection myself, collating what "votes" there are. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't edit war. See WP:3RR. You will be blocked if you continue. You must establish a consensus on the talkpage.--84.51.149.80 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Doctor42.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading Image:Doctor42.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
_2){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Doctor42.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading Image:Doctor42.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
_3){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Doctor42.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading Image:Doctor42.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
_4){kind=link}
Orphaned Image:Doctor42.jpg
[edit]You keep removing the orphaned tag from this image, yet it is A) orphaned, B) judging from the discussion, not likely to be used in the relevant episode. I'm going to replace the tag. You should not remove it again unless you find an article in which it can be used before time is up. If that means the image gets deleted, then I'm sorry, but that happens all the time.
Policy is quite clear on this: if a non-free image is not used, it will get deleted. If you try to beat the system by removing tags, eventually you'll have to be reported for infringing this policy. I'm sorry, but this is not something you should mess about with. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No image
[edit]Hi, at Wikipedia we prefer it if people don't edit war. You've been edit-warring a lot. Don't. Deleting the image is edit warring, since it's preventing the other side's viewpoint. The policy is to just leave the article how it is.--Rambutan (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring, I'm reverting unilateral edits back to a stable version. If you can find a policy saying that contentious stuff should be deleted until consensus is reached, then fine. But I don't know of one.--Rambutan (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Autoblocked
[edit]France A?
[edit]
Brinstar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I seem to have been blocked and accused of sockpuppetry. How am I connected to France A?
Decline reason:
reason — The block and Checkuser was done by User:Jpgordon, who is an arbitrator. You should take this up with him or the arb committee. Also see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SaxonUnit — Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
Brinstar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have recently had communication with Jp_gordon on the this matter and he unblocked me. Now he has reconsidered this. There is nothing in my contributions to Wikipedia to suggest any connection with France_A. I really don't understand what has happened here. Could someone else please intervene or help me take this case to the Arbitration committee. Thank you.
Decline reason:
As per the previously declined request the block was made by a an editor who is a checkuser and an arbitrator. I will leave a message to notify him of this request but you will not be unblocked. — TigerShark (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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 is intended for Brinstar to read and understand why he will not be unblocked. This will hopefully put him off from further requests. Furthermore, may I just point out on the record: you have edited the same articles in the same style (moderate disruption) as several other users, all of whom you have been shown to share an IP with. Here's a list: User:MrWez [2], User:ClaxsonKíng [3], User:Claxson [4] and User:KingoftheClaxsons [5]. You have also behaved the same as they did after they were blocked. I had an email conversation with Jpg, and we came to the conclusion that there was "no way you were not the same person".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to your email: please see this edit. You are a sock. You know it, we know it, and you will NOT be unblocked, ever. Sorry.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the older brother of the user "brinstar", currently in Australia, this should be verifiable via the IP address (I am posting from where I work). I can vouch for him that he is not a 'sockpuppet' and genuine. Please reconsider this blocking, thanks.The real adamj (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a friendly suggestion... and the great thing about this suggestion is it will work for you regardless of wether you are France A or not (although I think you are France A). Start a new account, but this time, keep your nose clean. Don't do anything to encourage the wrath of Porcupine. If you do that... nobody will have any reason to take up thew sockpuppetry war against you.--67.62.103.180 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nomination of The Bench (2007 film) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bench (2007 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.