User talk:Slytherining Around32

Welcome!

Hello, Slytherining Around32, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sarah (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Slytherining Around32, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black conservatism

Hello Slytherining, thanks for your help with Black conservatism in the US. It appears that some of your additions are not "conservative". Being a Black Republicans does not necessarily make you conservative. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very true, but I was adding those who had served during a Republican Presidency, so may be classified as a Conservative. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic, but keep in mind that we are pretty strict regarding article scopes here. In order to be included in "Black conservatism" the individual must be Black and conservative. Please do not add Black people solely because they were appointed by Republicans--they are out of scope and will be deleted. Thanks. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason why they have probably been appointed is because they are Conservative, otherwise there would be little reason in appointing them especially since polls and available data shows that most black people vote for the Democratic Party by 9 to 1. Therefore it is safe to assume that they are not Liberal but of Conservative leanings. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case. However we need a source stating that they are conservative. Do you have a reliable source stating that Artur Davis is conservative? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Safe to assume" is the same as original research (i.e. drawing your own conclusion from disparate facts, where no reliable source has yet drawn that conclusion), and that is disallowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical portraits

Hello, I noticed you were uploading a large number of historic portraits. Are you aware that for most of these paintings an identical or larger copy already exists on Commons?

Also, let me point out that you are using templates in your file description pages that really work only on Commons. Here on Wikipedia, you don't say "{{en|{{w|example}}}}"; you simply say "[[example]]". The {{en}} template isn't needed because we're not multilingual here, and the {{w}} template doesn't work at all – here on Wikipedia it doesn't produce a link to a page, but is a shortcut to the {{welcome}} template. Could you perhaps fix those?

Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would I just need to change the images and add example instead to fix the problem and remove both the en and w?? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all of the duplicate images that you uploaded that are available on Commons. If you wish to use the images in the article, please use the already uploaded copy. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I recommend that you reupload the photos to Commons instead of the English Wikipedia as they would be better served on Commons. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Arbor8 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brendan Doherty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brendan Doherty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Doherty until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Arbor8 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New uploads - missing licences ?

Hi There, for your new uploads you seem to be missing the licence details. From what I can see you meant to add {{OGL}} but it has been lost in the upload process ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, thanks for notifying me I will fix this problem right now! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Ministry of Defense images

Hi, according to [1], I'm afraid the Ministry of Defense images from http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk don't seem to be under the Open Government license. These are under a noncommercial-only license. If you have other information, can you provide a link? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click here [2] on the same website in the contact section under general guidance, it says that images are under the Open Govenment Licence, as I clicked on the part that said "click here to view our downloadable section" and that is where the images came from. I also contacted them by email to verify that the OGL was allowed for these images, also the references I have provided for the pictures show that the images are under OGL e.g. [3] as it says at the top "you may use and re-use information featured in this section free of charge in any form or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence".
- Ah, thanks, indeed. Didn't see those notes. Pretty confusing of them to not mention the license in the copyrights and terms of use sections too, but you're clearly right about what it says there. I'd recommend adding a link to that statement on the image pages (under "permission="), so as to avoid future misunderstandings. Sorry for the trouble. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its fine, though it is confusing as the Ministry of Defence hasn't updated its website copyright since 2007[4], so certain Civil Servants have been slacking on their job. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you take the time inbetween now and your block for sockpuppetry (I knew a couple of weeks ago by the way, but thought I'd let you waste more of your time making hundreds of edits I can revert in minutes) to fix any source links on images you just uploaded. Naturally you'll be able to find the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron when I file it shortly. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly deny being a sockpuppet, having just looked over most of the edits by the sockpuppet I can safely say that I have no connection whatsoever to him. My edits have been both fully sourced and referenced, I have created articles, uploaded images that have been added to articles and so I cannot understand why you have attempted to call me a sockpuppet. I will be writing to an administrator to complain! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Complain away, I could do with a laugh. They won't do anything since you're an editor banned for persistent sockpuppetry and copyright violations. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and I really recommend fixing the broken links instead of wasting what valuable time you have left uploading images where the source says "You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research", since Wikipedia requires commercial use. All those images will be deleted no matter what you do, so you might want to save the possibly fixable ones. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Those images should not be deleted as they have all been released under the Open Government Licence from their specific departments. As the Ministry of Health and Business both us the OGL [5] and [6], therefore images that I have uploaded date from 2007 onwards and the OGL was set up in 2007, so they can be used whenever due to that Licence. So I would advise not deleting them Slytherining Around32 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise, how come you have blocked me? I have shown whilst defending myself that there is no behavioural pattern. As my accuser says that I upload "Conservative politician images" though I have only uploaded five, the other 22 of my images are Labour Politicians so there is no pattern. He then mentions Republican politicians but most of my edits revolve around Democrat politicans, as all the articles I have created are about Democrats apart from one. With regard to "replacing previous sock images" I was unaware that images had been removed from these articles before as I have never edited any of those articles until today, as you will see from my uploads I have been adding numerous images to various articles all day. So please may you unblock me as there is no behavioural pattern between my edits, as unlike Marquis I have not committed any violations as my edits have been sourced and referenced at all times! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself showed yourself remarkably well acquainted with the sockmaster here. A mere 4 minutes after I'd mentioned the sockmaster's name you'd typed up that reply and had time to "having just looked over most of the edits by the sockpuppet I can safely say that I have no connection whatsoever to him", and that was 5 minutes before I posted the sock report. I must say 4 minutes is record time for you to have seen you have got a new talk page message, gone to your talk page, read it, looked at the sock report archives and investigated the previous editing style in order for you to boldly state that conclusion. Obviously that is more simply explained by you being the sockmaster in question, as is obvious to anyone else. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get accused of something then you are going to want to find out what you are accused of, so I went on your investigation link [7] and then clicked on archive which brought me here [8] and then looked at the most recent edits here [9] of Marquis, though I did not view all the pages of edits and then went to the latest sockpuppet claims [10] and here [11]. It doesn't take that long to scroll down a page to see if you have any articles that are similar. I never said I looked at every single archive just the oldest and newest. If you click the bar with your mouse and scroll down quickly whilst scanning the information you can see alot, so four minutes of brief scanning does achieve alot. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed pic

Many thanks for your work in uploading this pic - much appreciated - Youreallycan 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't thank him, it's licenced for non-commercial use so will be deleted when I get round to tagging it and all his other problematic uploads. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem glad I could upload it, Hackney have you not checked the photo information as it has been released by the Open Government Licence which the Department of Energy is under as here is the Departments copyright status [12], Ed Miliband became Secretary in 2008, whereas the [[Open Government Licence came into force in 2007, therefore this photo has been relased legally. It even states here [13] that the photo can be used as it is already in the public domain! Also states "You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research, and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law" [14]. So Hackney I think you should start reading things before you try and deleted them as the licence clearly does not state for Non Commercial use, as you can't make things up as you go along just to suitn yourself. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to get involved debating with a banned editor. I'm right, you're wrong, as you'll see when all the images get deleted. Goodbye. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You claim you are right and yet you have no proof, as you see and veteran editor who is probably senior to you has thanked me for the image, he has probably looked over the links to see if they are correct before writing on my wall. So why delete something that is correct! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and that picture of Ed looks good to go under that open government license - there is a template created at commons for that licence - I was involved in getting it created - I would move it to commons but currently I am opposed to the situation at commons and prefer now to keep files here. This picture that I uploaded and moved to commons was the one that the commons template was created for - is under the same license - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official-photo-cameron.png - Youreallycan 22:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi someone deleted the image of Ed Miliband even though I had pointed out that the picture in question was taken whilst he was Secretary of State of Energy, and the Department for Energy is under the Open Government Licence which was created in 2007 whereas Ed Miliband became Secretary in 2008 so that image was legally released yet someone saw fit to delete it, I am wondering if you could get them to undelete the image in question. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who he deleted the images says they crucially state "The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright" on here [15] and since these images were realised by the Department of Energy in 2010 I went onto their website to look at their copyright licence where I found this {http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/termsandconditions/termsandconditions.aspx] where it states "Information from this website may be used free of charge under the Open Government Licence" which as I have already pointed out came into effect in 2007 so these images should never have been deleted. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As an apparent sock of a banned user. I'll wait for CU confirmation before finalizing it, but for now the block seems safe enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is CU confirmation? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP:Checkuser", i.e. a technical check of your IP addresses in the server logs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh Ok, thanks. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If my IP is found not to be linked to Marquis, does that mean I am allowed to be unblocked? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It means I'll just have to file a more detailed SPI case to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are Marquis, since checkuser cannot prove innocence. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I was not asking you Hackney, and when you say "pull up a more detailed SPI case" does that mean you will create some fabricated evidence, as many people edit pages does that to make them a sockpuppet also. I see that by your block log, you yourself were blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: Personal attack continues after discussion and final warning" you try and portray me as a sockpuppet based on one article and yet you attacked other users. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No fabrication involved. Unfortunately human nature is against you. Without realising it, people behave in predictable ways that form patterns of behaviour. I am very adept at spotting those patterns, you are very bad at hiding them. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do divulge on my behavioural pattern, you say I upload Conservative Pictures and yet I have only uploaded five compared to thirty five for Labour - So how do I upload Conservative pictures when 88.5% of my British uploads are Labour. You say I edit Republican Politicians and yet I edit both Democrat and Republican politicians by adding the same thing each time Clinton Administration personnel, George W. Bush Administration personnel or Obama Administration personnel, furthermore the articles that I have created seven of them are Democrats to one Republican, so if 87.5% of my edits on these articles are on Democrats, how can you say I edit Republicans? You mention England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 and so I mention UK Independence Party a page which you edit continuously and the page seems to be notorius for vandalism, lies and sockpuppets, so who do I not know that you yourself are not a sockpuppet? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You appear to be arguing that because you edit articles in some other areas that you don't normally edit in addition to your usual editing interests that you cannot be the same person. This is a nonsensical argument. You also appear to be arguing that because you uploaded a number of images of Labour politicians that a similar principle applies. Again, this is a nonsensical argument particularly when I point out that many of those were uploaded after you had seen the evidence at the SPI. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The simple fact is you have accused me of being a sock puppet because of five Conservative Pictures and edits to the Police elections, which is like saying "We found you finger prints on the door handle, aswell as hundred of other peoples, but we are going to say it was you", also my editing interests have been continously the same so they are areas that I normally edit in! Well I shall point out that before I uploaded the five Conservative images I had uploaded 13 Labour before the SPI so called "evidence" which shows my intention of uploading more Labour images. You have based you evidence around the fact that some Conservative Ministers had their images deleted and then I put some new ones in place along with putting new images in nearl fourty other pages! Your arguement is flawed! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Future Perfect at Sunrise if the check user shows that my IP and my account are neither linked to the sockpuppet and that I don't have any sleepers (Don't know what they are as all I could find was a sleeping person when I checked on wikipedia), does that mean I would be unblocked and allowed to continue editing and uploading on wikipedia again? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hackney I have just seen the comment that you left on Sunrise's wall and even another editor has commented on your disgraceful behaviour as you say I have uploaded 20+ problematic images and yet everysingle one those images were realised from their respective departments as I have shown for example here [16] and its states here in one of the replies "The information is exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA), because the information is accessible to you, as it is already in the public domain. Photos of the department's Ministers are available[17] and are under that departments copyright and so I went onto the copyright section [18] where it mentioned the Open Government Licence, so I clicked on it [19].

Hackney I suggest you read the OGL before you start calling my images problamatic as here is the copyright section of all the government departments of the images that you are metioning: Energy : [20] - Uses OGL Health : [21] - Uses OGL Enviroment : [22] - Uses OGL Communities : [23] - Uses OGL

All of the images I uploaded where from 2010 and this link [24] says "The new Open Government Licence allows anyone - businesses, individuals, charities and community groups - to re-use public sector information without having to pay or get permission" and this website [25] is a government website that is releasing information and Pictures for people to use and so the images that I have used are not problamatic but legit. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2012 (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).

Slytherining Around32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked as if you look on the sockpuppet investigation against me it has been based solely on me uploading four images to articles and editing England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 [26], my accuser said that I was "Replacing previous socks images" and yet I had uploaded many other images before I uploaded the four images in question [27]. I was unaware that the images I had uploaded had been previously deleted for violations and before I had uploaded those four Conservative images I had uploaded 13 Labour and 1 Lib Dem ones to add to British articles as they were lacking, so for him to say that "Usual Marquis editing areas including Conservative politician image uploads" is quite ridiculous as all in all I have uploaded five Conservative pictures compared with thirty five for Labour - So mathematically Conservative pictures account 11.5 of my uploading whilst 88.5% of my British uploads are Labour. He then accused me of editing Republican politicians, yet I edit both Democrat and Republican politicians by adding the same thing each time Clinton Administration personnel, George W. Bush Administration personnel or Obama Administration personnel, furthermore the articles that I have created seven of them are about Democratic politicians to one about a Republican, so if 87.5% of my edits on these articles are on Democrats, how can you say I edit Republicans when the articles I have created are about Democrats. With regard to England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012, I have edited this article because it is important in British politics and I am passionate about the politicial spectrum in both America and the UK and that is why I created this article European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) and also added images to both of these articles [28] & [29] as it enhanced the article as a whole. Even in the sockpuppet investigation my IP has shown that I am not a sockpuppet as I have no sleepers and my IP is not linked to Marquis, so I am asking to be unblocked, as I have shown that I am not a sockpuppet as the four Conservative images I uploaded I did so with references and without copyright violations, also I was unaware that images on these articles had been deleted before as I uploaded them becuase I like adding pictures to wikipedia and articles [30]. My accuser mentioned that I had edited the Police Commissioner election page but just because an editor edits that page does not mean they are a sockpuppet, my accuser himself edits the UK Independence Party page which is frequently targeted by sockpuppets and vandals, so does this mean he is a sockpuppet, no it does not, as if a man walks into a pub and has a drink, does this make him an alchoholic - the answer is no. So please unblock me as I have shown that I am neither a vandal, copyright uploader or menace to wikipedia, my edits have been sourced and referenced accordingly and I would like to continue editing since my IP has shown me not to be a sockpuppet. Also the editor who has accused me if being a sockpuppet is currently trying to delete my images that I have uploaded in an attempt to get rid of the evidence and since I am unable to stop him being blocked I am asking can an administrator stop him from removing them before I can show that they have been uploaded legally. I also should mention that I suffer from ADHD and Aspergers Syndrome, and with the latter being a medical condition affecting the brain it means I fixate upon things and so I have become "fixated" by wikipedia which means I get urges to edit and it helps me relax and since I am not a sockpuppet being unblocked would help me with my condition. Many thanks Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the concerns here, and your personal attacks below are about to get your talk page access blocked as well if you don't strike them immediately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:58, 25 June 2012 (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.

With regard to addressing the concerns I thought I had made it clear? As the four images and and edits to the Police Commissioner were the reasons why I had been blocked. So may I ask what do you mean by "Haven't addressed the concerns? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed behavioural evidence SPI available on request if anyone isn't convinced and is considering unblocking. I'd prefer not to post it unless absolutely needed, since he's attempting to modify his behaviour and the more information he's given the more difficult it becomes to use behavioural evidence. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like to see the SPI evidence against me as your mentioning my behaviour, so I would like to see what you have gathered against me. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case is here [31]. CU can't be released due to privacy policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the case against me but as I have pointed out before that just because an editor edits a page does that make him a sockpuppet. The arguement against me is that I edited the Police Commissioner election page therefore I am a sdockpuppet, however Hackney himself edits the UKIP page where vandalism and sockpuppetry occurs so does that make him a sockpuppet also? You cannot find someone guilty becuase they uploaded four images to a page where images had been deleted before especially since I was uploading a numerous amount of images at the time to various articles. What does CU mean btw? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm trying to act fully in good faith, CU =WP:CHECKUSER Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its because you know i'm not a sockpuppet, yes I may have used insulting words but I am not a sock and can you not do a check user on me please as then you will see that I have no connection to Marquis. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser was already done and clearly indicated it was a possibility. See the SPI case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it has been done, butas you hbave said its a possibility rather then a definate, as there isn't alot of evidence to link me with Marquis! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Hilary Benn2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hilary Benn2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lord Davies of Oldham.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lord Davies of Oldham.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Jim Fitzpatrick2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim Fitzpatrick2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Huw Irranca Davies2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Huw Irranca Davies2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dan Norris2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dan Norris2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Shahid Malik.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shahid Malik.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Bill McKenzie.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill McKenzie.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Barbara Follett2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barbara Follett2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ian Austin2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ian Austin2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:John Denham2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Denham2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:John Healey2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Healey2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rosie Winterton2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rosie Winterton2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Phil Hope2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phil Hope2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Patricia Hewitt3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Patricia Hewitt3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Mike O'Brien2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mike O'Brien2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lord Warner2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lord Warner2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lord Darzi2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lord Darzi2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ivan Lewis2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ivan Lewis2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Gillian Merron2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gillian Merron2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Caroline Flint2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caroline Flint2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ben Bradshaw2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ben Bradshaw2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ann Keen2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ann Keen2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Andy Burnham2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andy Burnham2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Alan Johnson2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Johnson2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Philip Hammond3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philip Hammond3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lord Astor2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lord Astor2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Andrew Robathan2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrew Robathan2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Peter Luff2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peter Luff2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Nick Harvey2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nick Harvey2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Gerald Howarth2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gerald Howarth2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:John A Heffern Armenia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:John A Heffern Armenia.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.