User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus

Your GA nomination of Joe's Garage

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Joe's Garage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a line and say that I appreciate the work you are doing on Joe's Garage. Your response to my concerns has been tremendous. Anyway, I won't be done with the review for a few more days due to time constraints, but thanks for hanging in there. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. --MuZemike 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea what this is. I have never used any other account, and I abide by WP rules. I was just cleared from false charges of edit warring, and I get back to this? I am doing my best not to talk about other users here, but it is difficult, being that I am falsely accused of being a sock puppet of a user that was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have made several thousand edits over the course of two years. It seems clear that this block is invalid and based solely on a personal grudge against me. Seriously, the reason I'm being falsely accused of being a sock puppet is because I edit alternative rock articles. Are you kidding? This block and sockpuppet accusation is a joke.

Decline reason:

Denial of sockpuppetry does not translate to an unblock. Alleging malfeasance or collusion does not address the issue that resulted in this block. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 April 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.

I'm not seeing evidence of MuZemike's grudge. Can you show me the evidence? Tiderolls 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that I'm a "sock puppet"? That I edit alternative rock articles. This is not a good reason for blocking me. There is no evidence of me being a sock puppet of any user. --WTF (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not gonna be a rhetorical back and forth. If you have no evidence, I suggest you remove your unblock request and restate your case. Otherwise, I, or another admin, will most likey decline the request as it does not address the issue of your block. Tiderolls 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser block

I have asked the blocking admin if this block is a checkuser block. If it is classed as such, then only a checkuser can alter your block. If you decide to post another unblock request you should steer clear of accusing others of wrongdoing as that, without supporting evidence, is almost a guaranteed decline. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Your block is not a checkuser block, so you can request review from any admin. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks and stick to the relevant issue(s) should you decide to request unblock. Tiderolls 23:32, 22 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like a review of my block. The claim that this account is a ban evasion was asserted with the "evidence" that I edit articles on "alternative rock and its subgenres". I have tried to find out how to request a Checkuser to prove that I am not a sock of another editor, but I haven't found the instructions on how to do that. But my point still stands that the evidence for my blocking is thin, and also, I've already "done my time" with a 48 hour block. I don't need to be blocked for the actions of another user who was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia.

I have looked at other unblock requests, and users accused of sock puppetry usually don't have that many edits. I've been around for two years and I have made over 1000 edits. Surely I can't be a sock puppet given this history. I should also point out that I generally don't have negative interaction with other users, and the argument that resulted in my 48 hour block was over formatting, not a genre change as claimed by the user who requested my blocking.

Decline reason:

Nice try, but obvious socking is indeed obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 26 April 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.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited The Mighty Death Pop!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daredevil (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) 11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

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).

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

Request reason:

Please run a Checkuser test or whatever. I am not a sock puppet, this claim is blatantly false. I did my time, please give me another chance.

Decline reason:

You can't request a checkuser on yourself. Max Semenik (talk) 12:52, 29 April 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.

Better source request for File:Dice Drug Abuse.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Dice Drug Abuse.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bat Chain Puller.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Bat Chain Puller.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esham

Category:Esham, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dr. Steel

Template:Dr. Steel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reel Life Productions

Template:Reel Life Productions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Strange Music discography

The article Strange Music discography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page is just a list, like many others of this ilk. You can put as many links as you like in an "article" but there is no content here

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jodosma (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:N 2 Gether Now.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:N 2 Gether Now.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AllMovie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AllMovie 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/AllMovie 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 notice from the top of the article. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reel Life Productions

Template:Reel Life Productions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Counterfeit Countdown.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Counterfeit Countdown.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]