User talk:Thorblood

File copyright problem with File:Memewar Logo new.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Memewar Logo new.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cliff Diver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mako (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Tmbox

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).

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

Request reason:

I posted an image for a friend who didn't know how to add pictures to Wikipedia articles. Based on the info I was given, as far as I knew, the article and image were legitimate. I guess I won't post things for friends anymore. Thorblood (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, your deleted essay makes this all appear as an amateur breaching exercise. People who create hoax articles are pretty high up there on the list of people we do not need here. Kuru (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (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.

A Likely checkuser result is damn near inassailable in terms of unblock. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:00, 2 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just want to get this straight. Is the "deleted essay" a reference to my graduate studies essay, "Edit This Paper: Truth, Reliability, Consensus, and Wikipedia", that I posted on my user page back in 2007? In what way does this essay imply that I'm attempting to breach Wikipedia? Yes, the essay took a critical look at Wikipedia's reliability, but does that instantly make me vandal? Is Wikipedia so close-minded that all critical thinkers are potential threats? I admit I messed up by posting an image for a friend that turned out to be vandalism. She couldn't upload a picture, and I knew that you needed to have a "standing" with Wikipedia in order to post, so I offered to help. The article in question, "Cliff Diver," was attached to Fred Henderson, who is the father of my friend. I guess it was just a joke. I'm not going to post anything for her, or anyone else, again. Thorblood (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; none of your unblock request addresses that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I'm not trying to abuse the unblock tag. I thought I was being clear in my last two attempts, but let me break it down one more time. I have only ever used ONE account. This one. Thorblood. I have never created or used any other account. I have a friend who created the page Cliff Diver with her own account. I had nothing to do with the account she used. I had nothing to do with the initial creation of the Cliff Diver page. She wanted to upload an image to the page but couldn't. Since I had a good, long-running standing with Wikipedia, I offered to help, so I uploaded the image for her. I didn't question the validity of the Cliff Diver article because it was a movie starring her dad, Fred Henderson, who is a real actor in real movies. The Cliff Diver article ended up being a hoax. I had no idea it was a hoax, otherwise I would not have risked my account being blocked. I understand that this does not absolve me from all blame; I should have inquired about the image before posting it. But this is all an honest mistake. I did not engage in sockpuppetry. I did not collude with my friend to create an elaborate hoax. I had no negative intentions. I simply did a favor for a friend, which turned out to be a bad judgement call. Clearly, I won't post anything for anybody else ever again. Thorblood (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm willing to accept good faith on the explanation above, and unblock, with apologies for the confusion. As a note, you needn't "not post anything for anybody else ever again", just make it clear in an edit summary, when you're editing an article on which somebody you might be confused with based on location has asked for help with, as "assisting X" or some-such - self-disclosure helps, and be careful of appearing to game the system. Beyond that, though, we're all good here, I think. If your friend wishes to resume editing, and will abstain from creating further hoaxes, an unblock request on her account should be a simple technicality. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser comment: From a purely technical standpoint, the unblock request above is a plausible explanation for the sockpuppetry evidence. —DoRD (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]