User talk:Milneg

Welcome!

Hello, Milneg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BD2412 T 15:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Wgi01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgi01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Swerling01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Swerling01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Palacio correio mor 15.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Palacio correio mor 15.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Palacio correio mor 25.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Palacio correio mor 25.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Wallis Simpson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 March 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've performed three reverts in 24 hours (2 as the IP 81.153.161.127), the three-revert rule still applies even if you edit as an IP and then as an editor: the rule applies per person not per account. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Milne to DrKiernan: You reversed my edit on the basis of copyright infringement but the rules state 'What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.' You did not do this and you are therefore in violation of the rules. Reverting your revert which involves a violation of the rules is not a revert. Read the rules.

Hello, Milneg. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
Message added 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Milneg. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring at Wallis Simpson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You were warned that you violated WP:3RR, and your case was taken to the Edit warring noticeboard. However, instead of engaging in productive discussion there or here, you went and made your fifth revert in less than a day. This has nothing to do with the substance of the edits you made, although constantly linking to external sources that have been labelled as copyright violations is also a cause for block. → Call me Hahc21 19:41, 14 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

If I edit an article and someone else reverts that edit multiple times, who is edit warring? Me or them? Is it right to block me when the other person provides either false or unsubstantiated reasons for reverting, as has happened here? In the first place DrKiernan is refusing to correct plain factual errors; in the second place he is falsely claiming that the article already covers the issue; in the third place he has falsely claimed that I have breached copyright (another user, DonQuixote, was forced to admit that what he claimed was a copyright violation by me was just a matter of preference - see his talk page); in the fourth place he has broken Wikipedia's own rules by not establishing that the material was exempt ('What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.' - DrKiernan is REQUIRED to establish whether the material is exempt; a mere assertion on his part does not do this). Further, DrKiernan has refused mediation and the rules state 'the refusal by an editor to take part in mediation in conjunction with a refusal to discuss one's position vis-à-vis content may constitute edit warring or disruptive editing, to which the response is usually blocking by an administrator'. Given that DrKiernan has refused mediation and had refused to discuss his position (merely making false assertions), he is the one who is edit warring, not me. How can Wikipedia allow an editor to refuse to discuss a matter, continuously revert someone else's edits on the basis of false reasons (i.e. lies) and then block the OTHER party for edit warring? Furthermore, I have, as stated, requested mediation. I am acting reasonably here; it is DrKiernan who is acting unreasonably. Such a person should not be allowed within a million miles of Wikipedia. You say that the block has nothing to do with the substance of my edits. What on earth does that mean? This matter has EVERYTHING to do with the substance of my edits. It is nonsense to claim otherwise. I want (1) to appeal this block to an independent party, (2) to make a formal complaint against DrKiernan for repeated edit warring (and lying) and (3) make a formal complaint against Hahc21 for blocking me without adequately investigating the matter, as explained above. If you see my dispute resolution request and my linked pdf file (http://www.peerage.org/wallis/royal_feud_by_michael_thornton.pdf) you will understand what I am talking about. - Vianello (Talk) 04:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here is your independent party input: You have not actually asserted you did not perform five consecutive reversions within a 24-hour period. Any argument over the content of those is moot. WP:3RR prohibits a specific activity (namely, exceeding three reversions on an article within a 24 hour period). The intent or content of the activity is, as User:Hahc21 correctly stated, relevant only when it falls under the specific exemptions listed on WP:3RR, which you have not argued it does. If you did indeed perform the reversions and they did not fall under the 3RR exemptions, you have violated 3RR, and your behavior is, by definition, edit warring. It's a bright-line rule. Whether you violated it is also not affected by the perceived misdeeds of other users. A 3RR violation (or any violation) does not cease to be one simply because someone else committed one, any more than a crash between two speeding cars means either one was not speeding. It is fair to argue that another user is in the wrong on an issue. That's fine. You might well be right to claim other parties involved were edit-warring as well. But policy violations aren't ignored simply because other users also did wrong. Please see WP:NOTTHEM for an explanation of why this is irrelevant. In short, as this unblock request does not dispute that 3RR was violated (but rather only attempts to justify those reversions, in a manner not exempted from 3RR), and the WP:ANEW entry shows an unambiguous string of five identical reversions, for what my opinion is worth, the block stands. User:Hahc21 had no other responsibility than to identify the 3RR line was breached (by non-exempted reversions) and to impose a customary one-day block. (See related comment below) - Vianello (Talk) 04:33, 15 March 2014 (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.

Your reasoning is childish nonsense. If I have reverted x number of times it ONLY because someone else or other people have done that to me. So who is edit warring? The person who initiates an edit or the person/people who repeatedly reverses that edit? In order to determine who is at fault you HAVE TO look at the underlying reasons for doing the edit in the first place and for reversing that edit repeatedly. You say 'It is fair to argue that another user is in the wrong on an issue. That's fine. You might well be right to claim other parties involved were edit-warring as well. But policy violations aren't ignored simply because other users also did wrong. Please see WP:NOTTHEM for an explanation of why this is irrelevant.' You mean that the other party can be both wrong AND engage in edit warring but you block me instead? That is what you are saying. And this is Wikipedia policy? Utter nonsense. DrKiernan has repeatedly reverted my edits without providing proper explanations, made false assertions (re alleged copyright breaches, for example, and claimed that the issue is already covered in the article), made false statements of fact, broken Wikipedia’s own rules ('What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.' - which he didn’t do), engaged in edit warring and then had me blocked for edit warring and refused to enter into mediation. And he is allowed to be a Wikipedia editor? And you support this? I am going to request arbitration. There is no point in discussing the matter further with you. Milneg (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Your reasoning is childish nonsense." You're welcome to consider it childish nonsense, but it's WP:3RR, not "my reasoning". At least place the blame where it belongs if you want to do so. "DrKiernan has repeatedly reverted my edits..." Repeatedly meaning twice in this case. "If I have reverted x number of times it ONLY because someone else or other people have done that to me." Er, yes? That's how reversion works, and rather goes without saying. You couldn't revert X number of times if people didn't make X changes, because there wouldn't be X number of things to revert. That's as elemental as 1+1=2. You wouldn't be reverting if there weren't a change to revert from, would you? By your logic, all reversions to your edits would be "edit warring" (because they're reverting your edits), and all of your reversions TO those reversions are justified (because they're reverting your edits). You do not get to proclaim your reversions to be justified and all other reversions to be edit warring. "In order to determine who is at fault you HAVE TO look at the underlying reasons for doing the edit in the first place..." This is irrelevant because WP:3RR is not about the content of the edits. Which set of edits is technically "correct" is separate from the fact that edit warring is inherently damaging to the functions of the encyclopedia, even IF those edits would (if not being forced via an edit war) be constructive. Here's the thing: If we simply said "Edit warring is to be avoided, unless you're in the right," then there would effectively be no rule about edit warring - because people don't edit war unless they think they're right. The edit warring process ITSELF is what is harmful and disruptive. The whole issue of whether the edits in question are correct is why we have processes like arbitration and discussions. The participants are meant to stop what they're doing, and switch to this format, and talk it out. You didn't, and kept reverting instead. That is the behavior it's meant to prevent, totally agnostic to who is "right" - because, once again, even if one party is in the right, they're still edit warring and still making a mess of the editing process. The handful of exemptions given for WP:3RR are for those few cases that are truly unambiguous, such as completely overt vandalism; not mere content disputes, but things like spraying the word "butts" all over the page. You've repeatedly cast yourself as though you were somehow forced to instate your reversions beyond the 3RR threshold just because they were being reverted by various other people. You weren't. You freely chose to do that, in the face of being fully informed it was contrary to policy. Four different people reverted the edits in question, once (or in one case, twice) each. It is virtually impossible to consider one reversion an edit war, unless it's a repetition of a very long-term pattern. You do not receive a special dispensation or exemption for reverting everyone who opposes you, just because you feel you're in the right on an issue. In the long term, yes, assessing which edits should be implemented DOES warrant evaluation. That's what the process of discussion (the D in WP:BRD) is for. There is no such assessment for whether or not you're allowed to breach WP:3RR (except, again, for those explicit, unambiguous exemptions). No one is ever forced to breach 3RR. In future, if you want to see changes made, please discuss them, rather than violating a policy and then arguing that it doesn't apply to you. Going to arbitration is a reasonable next step, much preferable to this, so if you hold to that route, you should be just fine. If you want to argue other people should be blocked in some capacity, do it in that venue, rather than as part of an unblock request (which is about reasons you, and you alone, should not be blocked, and only that). If any ambiguity lingers, I will do my best to clear that up. - Vianello (Talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Milneg made the above request for unblock at 23:42 on 14 March 2014. Due to extra characters, the template did not properly transclude at that time. I have fixed the errors. MJ94 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why or how my signature ended up being placed on the submission as well as response. I assume something went mildly awry while the submission we being fixed. At any rate, as a follow-up not immediately germane to the assessment of declining the unblock request: I took a look at User:DrKiernan's contribution history. Two reversions do not qualify for WP:3RR. While you are free to debate the merits of these reversions, it is not very tenable to argue that two reversions qualify as edit warring, and five do not. If the user in question had also gone over 3RR, they would be eligible for a block on the same grounds. They did not. - Vianello (Talk) 04:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what a lot of words you use - and all to no avail. You have merely served to illustrate my point, which I will now try to explain in simple terms. The Wikipedia article about Wallis Simpson contains information that is seriously and intentionally misleading. I have repeatedly tried to correct that misleading information (I say it is intentionally misleading because DrKiernan has persisted in the untruth even after the truth was made clear to him - so there is no question of unintentionally misleading information). Every attempt of mine to do this has been reversed either by DrKiernan or other parties who I believe are acting in concert with him (so that he can avoid breaking the 3 revert rule). The fact that the article is seriously misleading can be easily ascertained by referring to the pdf file to which I have tried to link the article (http://www.peerage.org/wallis/royal_feud_by_michael_thornton.pdf). My position is backed by the then editor of the UK's most authoritative publication on the matter (Burke's Peerage), so there is no doubt about the truth. On top of this we have Wikipedia 5 pillars and policies on etiquette. Now I assume that you have some discretion in the matter of the application of the rules - and yet you have chosen to support a strict adherence to the rules EVEN THOUGH this results in (1) concealing the truth, (2) breaching Wikipedia policies on etiquette (such as, for instance, 'Do not make misrepresentations', 'Do not ignore reasonable questions', 'If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate', 'Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste') and (3) allowing a person (DrKiernan) to exploit strict adherence to the rules to allow him to conceal the truth and break Wikipedia's principles. How can what you have done POSSIBLY be justified when it results in the most serious fault that an encyclopaedia can be guilty of - concealing the truth? Now, because of DrKiernan's dishonesty and unreasonable behaviour and, frankly, your stupidity in applying the rules, I am going to have to take the matter to arbitration. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means 81.153.161.127 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop. It is not wise to follow the route you are taking and you will accomplish nothing with it. I blocked you because you violated 3RR. Had Kiernan violated it too, I would have blocked him either. Period. I, again, suggest you drop the stick and engage in productive discussion on Wallis Simpson's talk page, otherwise you may well end up blocked again. I'd also suggest you to not take this to Arbitration. It will be declined, believe me. → Call me Hahc21 18:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you apply the rules regardless of the outcome? You should not be an administrator for that reason alone. Secondly, you are now trying to stop me doing something I am entitled to do (request arbitration) WITHOUT explaining why (i.e. without explaining why an arbitration request will be refused). This effectively amounts to a threat (I consider it to be a threat). Also, are you saying that, since arbitration will be refused. there is NO WAY of ensuring that serious factual errors in Wikipedia articles can be corrected? After all, what other method is there? Thirdly, you say I should discuss this matter on the talk page. But DrKiernan has refused mediation. He REFUSES to discuss the matter. I find all this quite extraordinary. The first time I try to correct a factual error on a Wikipedia page I am met with an absolute barrage of lies and obstruction. Does this kind of thing go on all the time? 81.153.161.127 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration:

'Statement by uninvolved Gaijin42[edit] Ridiculous filing. A clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU as the user has gone through all other forms of DR....'

This is a straight lie. How can I have gone through all other forms of DR when the other party refused mediation? The other party refuses mediation and yet it is me who is saying 'I can't hear you'? This is a total inversion of the facts and I am amazed that the committee appear not to have even noticed it. This is really opening my eyes as to how Wikipedia is run. It is amateurish in the last degree. Do your sponsors know about this? Milneg (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'His own sources directly contradict his position http://www.peerage.org/wallis/royal_feud_by_michael_thornton.pdf It may be unfair, and discriminatory or whatever, but what happened happened, and Simpson was denied the HRH title.'

This statement is also a lie. The source makes it quite clear that the denial of the title was illegal. The fact that Wallis Simpson was denied the title doesn't make it legal. It was illegal and that is the whole point. Is he saying 'Well, if somebody does something illegal they have still done it, so there is no point in saying it was illegal?' Seriously? Milneg (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Simpson was illegally denied the title, it does not change the fact that she was denied the title. It is appropriate to say in the article that "Author X has argued that not being granted the title was illegal." It is not appropriate to say she in fact did receive the title. It is also not appropriate to say in wikipedia's voice as a matter of fact that not being granted the title was illegal, unless there are numerous reliable sources to that effect. it is also not appropriate to say anything regarding "most scholars" etc, unless we have a source making that assessment for us - (See WP:RS/AC). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Milneg: Mediation is not the only available dispute resolution process. We also have WP:DRN, WP:3O and WP:ANI in cases where behaviour is also involved. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process and only involves conduct issues, not content. → Call me Hahc21 22:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Millson01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Millson01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Soref01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Soref01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Wgi01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wgi01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above 3 files were uploaded in 2006 - 8 YEARS ago. No problems reported until days after I request mediation and arbitration. I detect a victimization campaign being organized on the sly.81.153.161.127 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you that I am investigating this conduct (including the handling of my mediation and arbitration requests) in relation to Wikipedia's byelaws. Any relevant breach of byelaws, tax regulations or charitable status regulations will be reported to the IRS and may adversely affect Wikipedia's charitable status. 81.153.161.127 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you draw people's attention to you in a forum like Requests for Arbitration, it's only natural that people will check up on you to see who we're dealing with. In this case, I happened to come across your upload log, which is something I often check when dealing with problematic users. That objections to your uploads weren't raised earlier means nothing – we used to have so many bad uploads in the past that a huge lot of them slipped through and went unnoticed. Now, do you have evidence of the public domain status of these items or do you not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'When you draw people's attention to you in a forum like Requests for Arbitration, it's only natural that people will check up on you to see who we're dealing with.' Yeah right. As opposed to actually dealing with the issue you mean? Now that would be novel. 81.153.161.127 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, your conduct neatly demonstrates everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. When an issue arises, your first response is not to try and resolve the problem in a helpful manner, it is to sneak around like a thief trying to dig up dirt. When you are caught sneaking around like a thief you don't apologize; no, you try to justify your disgraceful conduct. I am not falling for your nonsense and no-one else reading this will either - although if they are Wikipedia administrators like you I can pretty much guarantee they will throw their toys out of the pram. I am aware that serious academics laugh at Wikipedia; now I know why. Any so-called encyclopaedia which has no mechanism for correcting serious and deliberate factual errors cannot be taken seriously. Where this situation is compounded by conduct like yours that just makes the whole thing a sick joke. What a waste of effort. 81.153.161.127 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a friendly warning, your comment above constitutes a legal threat. per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats such actions will result in an indefinite block from wikipedia if not retracted. I suggest you retract the threat. Past that, you are failing to understand WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:RS etc. That you (or others) have the opinion that there is a factual error does not make it so. You need sources saying so. The source you provide is 1) only one voice, and 2) does not support your position. It explicitly says she did not receive the title. Its a fine source for saying "So and so has the opinion that she should have received the title, and her not getting it was illegal". And that is all it is good for. Clearly there is a notable controversy over her title and it is entirely appropriate to discuss that controversy in her article. It is not appropriate for us to declare one side in that debate correct and to bear the flame of WP:TRUTH Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Where do we start? 1. Reporting a potential offence to the authorities is not a legal threat (threat of legal action). Are you trying to prevent someone from doing what they are legally obliged to do by law; that is, report potential breaches of charity laws to the authorities? I am guessing that you are not legally trained. 2. Wikipedia will block me? That's a threat? I want nothing to do with Wikipedia. The thing is a sad joke. No serious academic relies on it. Now I know why. 3. You say my source is 'only one voice'. Either you haven't read the source (which makes you incompetent) or you have (which makes you a liar). Which is it? The choice is yours. The author (that's one voice) of the book cites the most authoritative work on peerage matters in the UK (that's a second source). In other attempted edits (and in my submissions) I have referred to a case in the House of Lords (the highest court in the UK - a third source) and a respected author on peerage law (that's a fourth source). So, these sources include the highest court in the UK and the editor of the most authoritative relevant publication (Burke's Peerage). Give it up. Seriously. Your attempts to argue the matter are just embarrassing. 4. A friendly warning? Really? Let me give you a friendly warning. It is a criminal offence to try to prevent by someone from reporting potential breaches of tax regulations by means of threats (which is what your 'friendly warning' amounts to). If you don't believe me go and get some legal advice. 5. Thank you for admitting that it is appropriate to discuss the matter in the article. Anyone reading the facts will be able to make their own mind up. But, frankly, I can't bothered. I do not regard Wikipedia as a serious publication. EVERY article that I have read on matters which I regard myself as an expert contains serious errors of fact. Wikipedia is OK for some general background (if you double -check it) but no more than that. If this is what happens with respect to what is really a pretty straight-forward matter, God knows what happens with more controversial issues. At least now I am fully forewarned. I am just sorry for other people who will rely on Wikipedia and find out the hard way. 6. By the way, you can try and block me all you want. I used to work in internet security at a major bank. I was once asked to demonstrate how it was possible to hack into the bank's systems in under one minute. Nothing you can do will be of any effect - but you won't be aware of it. But this is an academic issue; I have no intention of contributing anything to Wikipedia; it would be a waste of my time. 7. What is really sad about all this is that it started with me simply trying to make a minor amendment in good faith. I was met with a barrage of lies, rule-breaking, obstruction and now threats. Quite naturally I got rather annoyed. Good riddance to you. 81.153.161.127 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. KTC (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "trying to prevent someone from doing what they are legally obliged to do by law". However, what is happening is that you are being prevented form getting a serious conflict of interest by contributing to Wikipedia while you are in a legal dispute with the publishers of Wikipedia. This is exactly similar to the common practice of suspending an employee on full pay while a case between the employer and the employee is either pending or sub judice. Indeed, I am at a total loss as to how anyone could imagine that blocking an account from editing Wikipedia could be thought of as an attempt to stop the owner of the account from taking legal action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Wallis Simpson title of Royal Highness) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]