User talk:HKD
Fair use rationale for Image:KHF.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KHF.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
HKD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not Sockpuppet
Decline reason:
CheckUser evidence here indicates that you and Alex West are the same person. (X! · talk) · @499 · 10:58, 17 July 2009 (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.
Why am I on this list? I looked over the case and it states that all involved contribute to film related articles. If you look at my list of contributions I have never edited a film article.
As there can be no factual evidence that I am a sockpuppet, because I am not, I would like to be removed from this list.
HKD (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to reviewing administrator: Please see Checkuser comment(s) here in relation to this case. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 18:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
HKD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET
Decline reason:
You are currently blocked for sockpuppetry (abuse of multiple accounts). Checkuser evidence verifies that you and Alex West are the same person. Please note that further abuse of this template will simply result you being blocked from editing your talk page. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (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.
Tiptoety talk, It looks like it took you all of three minutes to responded once I placed this unblock request. I waited three days from the time I emailed you asking for help before I filed an unblock request and you never responded to me. Email sent (7/13/2009 5:05 PM). I though it was the job of administrators to help people when they ask for assistance. I guess not.
To the administrator who reviews this unblock request: First of all, I am not a sockpuppet and would like to be removed from this list. The last time I filed the unblock request perhaps I did not provide you with enough information. I have taken the time to read over all of the pages associated with this case. I will list my findings below.
1. There are two dead accounts that have not been used in over three years associated with this case. here here They should not even be on this list.
2. Two of the people named in this case apparently work out of the same office. At most, that would make the meatpuppets but not sockpuppets. Here are their responses to this case here here.
3. One account named in this case has not responded and has not been used in almost a year here. This leads me to believe the account may have been abandoned.
4. This brings me to me. Please read the evidence submitted for this case here. I will not waste space with a copy but it states that all of the accounts edit primarily film or model related articles. As noted in my previous request for an unblock I have never edited a film related article. Look at my list of contributions here. If you read over the case review, another contributor or administrator, Steve Crossin, stated he concluded that all of the accounts were separate editors. Even the administrator Tiptoety talk, who looked at this case states in regard to evidence, “which this case could use a bit more of.” here.
5. At least here in the United States when a person is accused of something they are shown all of the evidence against them and then allowed to respond to it directly. I have been shown no evidence except the statement made by Tiptoety here. I am sure this is because there is no factual evidence, because I am not a sockpuppet.
6. In order to reach their conclusion Tiptoety, states that they contacted other clerks to make a decision for this case. I have looked at the archive page for sockpuppet cases here. This case shows that the only two people who had anything to do with it were the person who filed it Delicious carbuncle and Tiptoety talk, the administrator who made the decision. If they exist, I would like to know who these other clerks are that reviewed the case.
7. This case against me is based on conjecture. I think we can all agree that conjecture should not be used against a person for any type of judgment.
8. I am not a sockpuppet and would like to be removed from this list. I would be happy to communicate with any administrator to resolve this issue.
HKD (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Railroaded
[edit]I guess this is what you call getting railroaded on wikipedia. I actually find it kind of funny as I don't contribute to wikipedia that much.
For anyone who wants to know the facts about this case, as I see them, I wrote them above the last time I signed on.
If I contribute any further to wikipedia I guess I am suppose to create a new account. See you then.
This is John Barrington HKD (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) singing off.
The article Emerson College of Herbology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)