User talk:Xerocs

Curps

04:48, 14 February 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked BDOG (contribs) (infinite) (vandalism) He blocked this IP address infinitley with no warning to the specific user who shows no signs of vandalism in his contributions and the following paragrapghs detail what happened next...

Excuse me? I am blocked because my IP was used by a vandal???? This I am assuming is another asinine attempt by a sanctimonious Admin to stop vandals by blocking an entire IP vs. the individual user... I looked at the user ( BDOG) who supposedly vandalized something and deserved a block and I noticed that he didn't even have any contributions other than the sandbox nor was he even given a vandalism warning... Curps pull your head out... This is BS and you had better have me unblocked PRONTO!

Seriously... blocking an IP address when he ( Curps) could have just blocked the user? This has got to stop... This "Admin" has repeated requests on his talk page to stop using autoblock and apparently he is quick to ban entire blocks of IPs... I will change this when I become an Admin.

I sent this e-mail to User:Curps and recieved absolutley no return comment, I am still blocked, and even when I went through the WikiEn-I mailing list all I recieved was this nasty response...

"Unless someone actually bothers to register a user account, we can only block the IP. Even if they register an account and we block the account instead, all the vandal has to do is not log in, in which case we're forced to block the IP. You're asking us for something we can't do.We don't respond well to threats and personal attacks.Generally we don't grant adminship to people with a history of incivility and personal attacks, but you have time to redeem yourself. User:Philwelch"

So I replied, "I am requesting that you unblock my account... that is something you cannot do? I am sick of self-righteous power tripping Admins... I am neither threatening you are personally attacking you... see the "don't be a dick" article on wikipedia, or maybe you are not familiar with that one? Finally, you say, "generally "we" don't grant..." I am assuming by "we" you think that "you" are the entire voting population and elected speaking voice of wikipedia??? I have neither personally attacked you nor do I have a "history of incivility"... so that comment about redeeming myself.... well you know what you can do with it.xerocs 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply from User:Philwelch, "self-righteous power tripping admins" isn't a personal attack? I was making an observation about the community in general. I said "incivility", not "invincibility". Thankfully we also provide Wiktionary so you can look up the meanings of those words.Quite frankly, I would unblock you, but since you lack the common courtesy to ask nicely, I don't have to do a goddamned thing for you. I don't know how they run things at Ellsworth Air Force Base, but at Wikipedia, bullying and insulting people doesn't get positive results."

And my response to User:Philwelch,

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards

See Jondels and Massiveegos input on my self righteous comment, I believe it is a justifiable comment rather than a personal attack... also thank you for clarifying that my spell check button works, I spelled incivility incorrectly and it came through as invincibility... And in regards to your last comments... maybe you should look the words up as well. Thanks for your time and patience... If you are an Admin, you will make a fine example when I present my case to the problems with the wiki-community."xerocs 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In closing, I am not blocked, only my IP is... why is beyond me and this is the type of reaction you get from exactly the type of Admin I will not be when I am elected. xerocs 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-blocking

In case there remains any confusion about this, I want to clarify that User:Curps is not responsible for the auto-block feature. For more information about this feature, you can read Wikipedia:Blocking#Effects_of_being_blocked. It is not something that individual administrators have any control over. If I block a user, I do not get to choose whether to activate the auto-blocker; the software does it automatically. Jkelly 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Months and 1000 Posts

I guess you might be able to title this my mission statement. I will be once again requesting adminship. I will wait until I have reached at least 1000 posts and 3 months and I will continue to write articles and make revisions until then. I believe that the readers who see my posts will be extremely pleased with my edits as well. I am content to be labeled an editor until such a time that I become an admin. I did want to be clear on my intentions though. I am not going to dedicate my life to the wikipedia. I will put in the time to learn the ropes and the ins-and-outs of how things work. I do have other priorities in my life though i.e. studying for my SKT/PFE exams in March as well as attending classes for my BA in IT with an emphasis on ISD. When I become an admin, I will be an admin for the little guy. By that I mean that I will be as vigilant as I possibly can on the subject of vandalism. I am going to give everyone a fair shake; instead of trimming a hangnail with a chainsaw and filing it down with a belt sander I am going to give the benefit of the doubt; instead of deletion I am going to offer my time to help re-write, edit or whatever I have to do to get the article published on the wikipedia. I believe this is the best way to keep the people that make wikipedia possible. The problems that I have encountered so far are almost enough to drive me away, so I can understand the negative publicity that has been projected to other possible subject matter expert. I believe that if wikipedia is ever going to be taken seriously this is the attitude that all current administrators are going to have to take.

In summary: I will acquaint myself with the wikipedia, I will read the recommended articles, I will maintain my editor status until I have the time and required posts to become an admin, I will try to undo malicious vandalism, I will work on the review work that seems to be piling up, I will fill the requests that I can for articles. When the time comes for me to request adminship I do highly encourage the known vandals to strongly oppose me because I will be harsh if I find that someone deleted a whole article for no good reason or they just spammed a page just to do it. I also encourage the people that believe they have not had a fair shake contact me and let’s see what we can do as a team. I am asking that until then all who read this article and will possibly back me with a vote please acknowledge by signing the bottom of this post. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to make wikipedia better. xerocs 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Xerocs, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for 24hrs because you've been advertising your request for adminship nomination in a number of places. As you have less than 100 edits, you are unfortunately an unsuitable candidate at this time. I suggest you get acquainted with Wikipedia more, get plenty of edits under your belt (the vast majority of admins had more than 3 months' experience and over 1000 edits before becoming admins), and if you still wish to become an admin, consider reapplying then. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can reply on your talk page. I am talking specifically about these two edits: [1] and [2]. Because you're new, I'll unblock you, because you're not familiar yet with the way we do things here. I hope you stay here and contribute, but at the current time, requesting adminship is premature. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we will agree to disagree then. I know that I may be a little premature in requesting, but I am also persistant. As far as the "spam"... 1) that was post quite a bit prior to my request for admin and 2) one incedent is hardly "spam". Not that I will become an Admin at this request, but you are not sole authority on who is "in or out". xerocs 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did you plan on unblocking me? xerocs 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is already cleared.

Just for your information, nobody in the last 400+ RfAs has succeeded in becoming an admin if they had less than 750 edits to their credit. Only 10 had less than 3 months experience, and only one had less than two months. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the voters at RfA expect experience in a candidate. --Durin 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi xerocs, I had unblocked you at the same time as I left this message on your talk page. For some reason you were still blocked, I'm not quite sure way but it appears to be fixed now. I'm glad you've decided those two edits were a mistake, and I have no particular to you personally becoming an admin at a later date when you've more experience with the project. I admit my blocking of you was premature and for that I apologise. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be extremely clear in this post... and I will not remove it so that when the time comes that this can be used to try and denounce my request for adminship it will have been preserved for the election. You will notice in the first edit Talrias blocked me for a 24 hour period for "advertising your request for adminship nomination in a number of places"... by "a number of places" he meant 1. You will also notice that the places that I "advertised" was a User page that specifically said add something interesting and that I "advertised" there several hours prior to even having the idea of requesting adminship. You will notice in edit number two Talrias mentioned that my request was premature because, "that isn't the way we do things here." At the point of my request I was well aware of the way things have been done and thought that I may be able to make a difference, I still feel that way. Just so that it is known though, I am the type of person that likes to take charge and do things when I see fit to do them. With that mentality I have decided to stick this out and continue on the path required to become an admin. Finally in the last edit by Talrias you will notice that somewhere along the way I "admitted to those two edits being a mistake"... I don't remember saying that, and just so that it is clear, I do not believe that my edit was a mistake. I made that edit on purpose with the intention of "adding something interesting" to that users page. Obviously it was interesting since it received the attention it did. Good faith or not, these are the type of SNAFUs that need to be avoided in the future. Once again, I just wanted to get that off my chest and clarify the subject.... and I wanted to do it prior to my 3 months and 1000 edits so that it doesn't come back to bite me in the heiny when I submit my RfA again. Thanks. xerocs 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Patrick. Note that you have been unblocked for a while.

Welcome! See also the welcome message at the top of the page. Two hints: one is that one should sign one's posts (four tildas, ~~~~) and that one should use an edit summary at all times.

Takes a while to get used to the project. As far as your requests for adminship, I am glad you are willing to help, but as you know (from your background) promoting somebody to general from the first day may not have good consequences for the troops later. :) That time will come. :) Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you about the promotion to General on the first day and thanks for putting it in my language (I am military) I do however want to leave my candidacy application up and leave it to a vote, even if I am not voted to Admin. Thank you also for the note on signing my post. Also, I am not yet unblocked as I have tried repeatedly to wikify my articles and it keeps telling me that I am blocked. I believe that Talrias is abusing his power and that is no example for furture Admin canidates to follow. xerocs 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3], your block is cleared. As for the RfA itself; there's not much feedback that can be gained from leaving it up other than you are too new, too inexperienced. For examples of similar RfAs and the feedback that was received on them:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman (67 edits)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PHDrillSergeant (67 edits)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo (58 edits)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mtmdem (54 edits)

Note that you currently have 60 edits.

We really do welcome your contributions! Just hang around for a while, learn the ropes, write some great stuff into the encylopedia (how about stuff on the bases you've served on? Pictures? You would have a unique view), and in some months and >1,000 edits you can probably become an admin. For now, there just isn't a clear reason to give you adminship priviledges. The things you said you'd do in response to question 1 are things for which you don't need to be an admin.

If you've got any questions, I'll be happy to help...if you'll take advice from an old squid :) All the best, --Durin 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked by Talrias, see [4], however it appears the autoblocker activated and blocked you since you were editing from the same IP address, it is not an uncommon mistake to miss autoblocks when unblocking. I am not an admin so can't unblock you myself but will try and find someone who can. Please be aware of the general policy assume good faith, Talrias definitely intended to unblock you. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, I would be glad to take advice from an old squid, I was deployed to an old squid base last year for 6 months, maybe you have heard of it? Diego Garcia? Any advice will be appreciated.

pgk, Thank you.

Diego Garcia? You poor soul :) Can't say I've been there...and damn glad I haven't! :) I spent most of my time in U.S. 6th Fleet ships.

As for adminship, I recommend a few resources for you to review if you want to become an admin someday:

Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide
Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards - note that this is not regularly updated, and many of these individual standards are very out of date.

Also, you might want to have a look at a couple of subpages of mine:

And, I'd like to echo again that the pedia sure could use your input on bases. --Durin 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Patrick Erin Mason

Dear Patrick, I am not diminishing in the least your many military achievements and distinctions. You are free to write an article about yourself and post it again at the mainspace, but please keep in mind that two principles must be observed if you don't want it to be deleted again like R3m0t already did: you must establish both notability and verifiability. The easiest way to prove these points is to provide at least some web links where your person/records/works are cited. If you have indeed written books, references will also serve. Citations would also be nice, and regarding your concern about the way in which they must be made, don't worry about their format for now; just write the article at your user page, let me know when you're done and I'll help you with that. Be aware that most wikipedians, myself included, take articles written by its own subject with a grain of salt, so be sure to include as many references as possible to demonstrate the principles I mentioned above beyond reasonable doubt. Let me know if I can be of further assistence to you. Regards, Phædriel ^*whistle* 22:26, 6 January 2006

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Rather than get into a revert war on this article, how about adding the information you are conveying to 2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion? Please note that there is a policy on Wikipedia regarding revert wars covered under Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Note that this policy does not mean you are liberally allowed to revert any article up to three times in 24 hours. Rather, it's mean to say ...don't get into revert wars. Talk it out on the talk page, and invite the people you are contesting the issue with to the discussion by leaving notes on their talk pages and referencing the article's talk page. Ok? --Durin 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durin but I think my stay here at the wikipedia will be brief... it seems that it isn't what you know, but who you know... the people writing the articles also seem to know how to bend the rules in their favor. Prime example being that Operation Iraqi Freedom is in fact the name of a military operation and does not encompass the whole background of Iraq. I posted my article so that it would cover the OIF not the whole shebang from the dawn of civilization and it became a "revert war" because the original contributor (I am assuming) did not want his redirect taken away, even though I left the link and a see also button allowing people the opportunity to gather more on the subject of Iraq if they needed more than just the operation. Either way it is a mute point and until people realize that they are not nor will they ever be the sole authority on any given subject the wikipedia will be destined to fail. Contributors must realize that just because they decided to redirect a subject to something that it is entirely not and their redirect is changed, that it is not a personal attack on them. Alas, I have neither the power or the ambition to further pursue the child like politics of this website... when something is done about the way things are being handled I may look into it, until then though it seems to be a failed attempt. The 4 maybe 5 days that I have been here have left a sour taste in my mouth. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? xerocs 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xerocs, the way in which articles like this should be handled can be seen at 2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion, where in the very first line of that section, it refers to "main articles". The structure here is that the non-main article contains summary information, and the main article contains detailed information. Article length is a potential issue, and this is why large subject area articles are broken down into this type of structure. If you were to stay, this is what I would recommend you do.

What you created at the Operation Iraqi Freeom article is a step in the right direction, but in the last state you left it in [5], the article's contents were mostly covered by 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This is why the article was reverted to a redirect, not because of wiki-politics. What was done was done properly. What I would suggest is creating a page in your user space, for example User:Xerocs/Operation Iraqi Freedom and work on that page to flesh it out, get it into proper wiki form, and make as in depth an article as is reasonable. Once that is done, post the work to the main Operation Iraqi Freedom article, and place a note on the talk page of that article explaining the rationale. If you do this, I'll back you up on it. There is ample precedent.

Are there politics on Wikipedia? Yes. But, there are structures and support systems in place to negate the effect of such antics. Your viewpoint, especially as a participant in this offensive, is very important. Please do not leave. Instead, let's work together to create a great contribution to Wikipedia, ok? --Durin 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Patrick, I too would encourage you to stay. You may seem thrown in the deep end right now, but it can't be the most harsh situation you've been placed in. Just stick around at least a little while longer. No one likes to see editors leave. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, Patrick!

I really really love your user page! In case you wanna post it as an article too, just let me know and I'll format it a little according to WP guidelines, and place it on a temporary page for you to review it. I also praise your intentions and goals, which you've taken the time to explain at your Talk Page. If you abide to those commendable self-imposed rules, I'll be happy to support your RfA when the time comes, and I'm positive many other editors will. Let me know if I can help you with anything. Cheers! -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 22:00, 12 January 2006

Ken v

Rather than blank the article could you use one of the {{subst:db}} templates. It makes it easier to see and delete. There is a full list here Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Thanks for the help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this then saw you had posted to my talk page as well. Sorry about that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

What I usually do is click on "diff" and then click on the older version of the article (the date and time link). When you click "edit this page" in an old version, you will get a warning that it is an old version, but go ahead and just put "rvv" in the edit summary, mark it minor, and submit. This will revert the article to the last pre-vandal version. Sometimes the vandal did more than one edit, but you will notice this when you click "diff" and you just have to go back further to an older version. Once you become an admin, it will be easier with the rollback priviledges. NoSeptember ^talk 16:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a good job. You may want to read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and learn about the warning templates and how and when to notify the community of vandalism. I often check a vandal's user contributions, since many make a series of edits to assorted pages in a short time. NoSeptember ^talk 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More advices

Hi Patrick! First of all, let me congratulate you on your fast learning and quick involvement in the project. Your interest in fighting vandals more effectively pleases me greatly too - bravo! ;-)

Regarding the best ways to revert vandalism, NoSeptember's advice is great, and it is what we editors normally do. However, I've recently got used to revert vandals with Lupin's tool, which greatly simplifies the task. By simply hovering your pointer over a Wikilink, a pop-up menu appears with many options and a small sumamry of the contents of the article. The option you'll find most useful when doing RC patrolling will be the "Last edit"; it will automatically prompt you to a comparison between the last stored version and the one that has been just edited. If you detect that this last edit has indeed been a vandalism, then you should hover over the "Revision as of (hour) (date)" (the previous version), and click on the "Rv" option. Not only it will take you to the pre-vandalized version, but it will automatically hit the "Save" button for you. The edit summary will read something like "Popups-assisted reversion to revision (number)". So you see, you've simplified all the process that NoSeptember has described to merely two cliks. You'll also find other options at the popups very useful, like being able to check an user contributions with one click, and many more that you'll discover for yourself as you get more and more familiar with it. Ok, in order to install it, here's what you must do:

Copy the following content into this page: User:Xerocs/monobook.js. After it is saved, press CTRL+F5 in order to clear up your browser's cache (or press Ctrl-Shift-R if your're using Mozilla FireFox). For more information, you can visit User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool.

// Filter changes live
// [[User:Lupin/recent2.js]] - please include this line
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

At first you'll be a bit disoriented, but after doing it a couple of times you'll get the hang of it and you'll see how easy it makes it for you to both spot and revert those pesky little vandals ;-) Have fun! And if I can be of any help, just call me again, k? Cheers! – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time!

Hey, any time, Patrick ;-) The questions you ask, are the same ones we all did when we first came here, and rest assured you'll be answering them when more newcomers arrive and ask you for help. That's what we're all here for!

Yes, I sincerely encourage you to install and use Lupin's tool; you'll see it makes vandal fighting so easy, you won't be able to return to the more rudimentary way once you've tried it. Again, if you happen to have any doubts regarding its use, just let me know and I'll try and help you the best I can.

To check how many edits you have, there are tools commonly used by everyone, which get information directly from the Wiki media. Not only you can check your own edit count, but also that of any other registered user. Here's a link to the most popular one:

Your own edit count (according to the existing data, you currently have 187 edits. You may effectively have a few have more, but the data take some time, from minutes to hours, to refresh and reflect the correct number of edits properly, so take this as an aproximation rather than an accurate count). You'll also observe that there are different kinds of edits, whether to articles, user and user talk pages, project (Wikipedia pages like i.e. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship), etc. Generally, when an editor applies for adminship, it is expected that his/her contributions are properly distributed among areas or namespaces, with strong emphasis on participation in discussion and project pages. The edit counter also serves you to see how spread your contributions are, and not only the total number of them.

Regarding the little star awards you mention or barnstars, well, they are given to you by other users for different reasons, like fighting vandalism, valuable contributions, or simply being nice to others. You'll see there are plenty of barnstars around regarding which particular act or achievement from your peers you wish to reward (yes, anyone, including you and me, can simply give one to another user if we simply feel like doing it). Have a look at Wikipedia:Barnstars for more information.

Phædriel is proud to award Xerocs this *Exceptional newcomer award* for being such an exceptional and bold new editor! Congrats, and keep it up!

Speaking of that, and after watching your efforts to strive for the best of the Wiki community by fighting vandalism and your high level of Wiki enthusiasm, I'm delighted to present you with your first barnstar! ;-) Feel free to post it at your user page - I'm sure it'll be but the first of many. Congrats! Kisses, – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast lesson - how to use Lupin's tool

All rite, Patrick, here's a quick lesson of how to use Lupin's gadget. First of all, I see that I gave you the code to a more complex tool, that you don't really need for vandal fighting purposes. I apologize; please replace the text at User:Xerocs/monobook.js with the following and nothing but this text:

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'

            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

I'd do it for you, but those pages are protected, and no one but you can edit it. OK, it's natural that you don't find the options at first, so here are the steps.

Step one

First, let's say you're doing recent changes patrolling, and you see a page in the list that you want to check whether or not it's just been vandalized. Hover with your mouse cursor over the page title and a popup will appear, with different options. The one you should click is the Last edit link. See the pic.

Step two

File:Lupin examp 2.jpg

You will be prompted to a comparison between the current version with the latest edit that made it apeear at Recent changes, and the previous version. You will be able to quickly detect whether or not this last edit was a indeed vandalism. Let's say it was. By hovering on the older revision link (the one on the left side of your screen), another popup will display. The link that matters here is the "Rv" one (see pic), and by simply clicking once on it, the job is done. You will be automatically taken to the screen depicted in the step below.

Step three

File:Lupin examp 3.JPG

This last step is entirely automatical, and there's nothing you must do here. Lupin's tool will auto-click the "Save" button for you, undoing the latest change. See the pic.

You should be OK to go if you follow these steps. You'll get used to them real quick. Hope this helps, Patrick =) Just let me know if I can help you more. Kisses, – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I unblocked the IP, please check to see if it worked. (Try to post on another page) NoSeptember ^talk 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an autoblock system that blocks the IP used by a user automatically. This is to prevent someone from making multiple accounts to vandalize. With shared IPs it sometimes causes colateral damage. Don't get upset if this happens occasionally. Someone from your ISP is vandalizing and it affected you. Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy and you can use Template:Unblock if this happens again. No matter how frustrating, any overreaction or anything approaching a personal attack is a very bad idea, the system is not perfect and colateral damage is unintentional, no need to take it out on other vandal fighters (and Curps is doing a good job of blocking dozens of vandals a day). NoSeptember ^talk 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Take a look at the block list here and you can see how active vandal blocking is around here. Always keep your cool, that is one of the cardinal rules. If you get the reputation of a hothead, no matter how justified you may think you are, you will have a hard time here. No one is out to get you :-) NoSeptember ^talk 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the blocklist and noticed that curps is doing alot of it... but if he continues to block IP addresses with an infinite time limit will that not lead to the eventuality of all IPs being blocked with only a select few being able to edit? xerocs 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. IP addresses are never blocked indefinitely unless they're open proxies. You were affected by an autoblock, which should normally expire after no more than 24 hours (the software handles this automatically, it's not within the power of any admin to control), so I'm not sure why you remained blocked. -- Curps 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask why we can't just block the user without blocking the underlying IP address... well unfortunately we literally can't. The software is designed that way, the underlying IP address gets "autoblocked" when a username is blocked, and it's out of the control of the admin who places the block. -- Curps 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation... I think maybe we should see if we can't make some changes to that software. Like I said, there has got to be some process involved for blocking... In this case you had a specific user, who neither made any contributions (other than to the sandbox) nor was he warned about the supposed vandalism he was responsible for and the entire IP was blocked for a period longer than was intended... I understand your wanting to fight vandalism, but in the process you crippled a fellow vandal fighter... xerocs 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I'm sorry to let you know that I removed your RfA as incapable of promotion. Early removal is an opportunity for the candidate to assess his or her RfA, read the comments of the community, and so better prepare for a future nomination to adminship. Good luck to you then! -- Cecropia 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Mentorship

REFERENCE OR OFFICE SYMBOL:
en-wikpedia

SUBJECT:
Request for Adminship Guidance

TO:
Patrick Erin Mason
Staff Sergeant, Editor Corps, En-wikipedia
Candidate

FROM:
Cecropia
SGT, MPC, WPB

DATE:
21 Feb 2006

Adminship in English Wikipedia (“the unit”) generally requires three (3) months time in grade, and one thousand (1,000) edits, a large number of which are expected to be “substantive.” Waivers of these requirements are rarely granted, and large waivers are never granted.
Members of the promotion board (WP:RFA) have advised the candidate of their specific objections, which in the view of the reviewing Bureaucrat, appear to substantively express their objections and a candid offer of their advice.
The candidate should familiarize himself with the general culture of English Wikipedia, which shall include:
a. An understanding that collegiality is expected of admins, especially before and immediately after promotion.

b. Admins and admin candidate are expected to exhibit tolerance, tolerance being a leadership quality that is highly prized. Those admin candidates who wish to make a positive impact on the culture of the unit, especially in correcting deficiencies observed, need to know that Leadership by Example is the most effective method of mentoring toward those who lack the candidate’s unique qualities and experience.

c. Similarly, the candidate can receive aid, advice and support from those who have come before him.

d. The culture of the unit is more akin to that of a college than that of a military unit; as such, the candidate should be aware that positive leadership techniques and a straightforward style of expression might be viewed as overly aggressive.
The Advising Bureaucrat recommends as follows:
a. That the Candidate wait two (2) months before presenting another request to the promotion board. During that time, it might be worthwhile to contact those who voted on the candidates last nomination to seek their input on what actions might meet their objections to his previous candidacy.

b. Before presenting himself for promotion in the future, continue editing and writing article for the Unit. This is the most highly prized activity in the Unit in the view of the great majority of experienced Unit members.

c. When writing and editing in areas where other editors have contrary views, the candidate should present his ideas forthrightly, but be prepared to explain the importance and give citations for his edits, and consider fairly the objections of others.

d. When the candidate again presents his request for promotion, answer all questions forthrightly but in a positive fashion without criticism of peers or those of superior rank.

e. When the candidate again presents his request for promotion, he should always speak of himself in the first person and never in the third person.

f. The candidate should always maintain civility and assume good faith. Exhibiting patience even with apparent ignorance promotes the consensus necessary to advance the Unit’s goal of encyclopedic excellence.

To be governed accordingly.

(signed)
Cecropia 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advising

Attach: 0 attachments

Are you still around?

I know the "exegencies of the service" may be tying you up, but I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Those with a knowledgeable first-hand military perspective are few on Wikipedia. -- Cecropia 21:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you did an edit earlier this week. We would be happy to have you back whenever the time is right for you. NoSeptember ^talk 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days... xerocs 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PHR.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PHR.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PMENCO.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PMENCO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 23:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SMAE.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SMAE.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trainingribbon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Trainingribbon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Dunny is listed as miscellany for deletion

The page you created above is currently listed as miscellany for deletion. You will be able to link to the discussion by following the links in the tag applied to the page. You indicated in your edit summaries when creating the project that you weren't sure how to create a project. On that basis, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide useful for some ideas on how to form a project in such a way as to be most likely to attract other editors. Badbilltucker 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was decided to stay active, deletion debate was more or less canceled at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (fourth nomination). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Mason medals.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Mason medals.JPG. The copy called Image:Mason medals.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello Xerocs, I saw your message on Phaedriel's talk page because it is on my watchlist. Unfortunately, Phaedriel has not been active here for some time, so I would suggest seeking RfA advice from another person. Sorry. --Kyoko 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up... I will just leave my comment there in case she happens through though. Who knows, someone else may see it and have some valuable input for me. xerocs 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know that you won't like to hear this, but in order to spare you future disappointment, I strongly suggest that you do not seek a third RfA until you gain much more experience on Wikipedia. I looked at your edit count, which shows long periods of inactivity, as well as not many edits to Wikipedia overall. For comparison's sake, here is my own edit count. I'm not saying that you have to have as many edits as me, but you definitely need more than just a few hundred. While I understand your periods with no edits (real life is more important than a website), your record of contributions at this time doesn't provide enough evidence to convince an RfA participant of your judgment and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies.

Fortunately this is something you can fix, simply by editing more. I'd be happy to provide guidance along the way, but please understand that you need a lot more edits in many areas (articles, dealing with vandalism and reporting vandals to WP:AIV, learning about deletion policy, etc.) before you would have a realistic chance of passing another RfA.

A quick tip: please remember to use edit summaries, because they help other editors understand what changes you have made to an article, and why. You can enable a reminder to use edit summaries in your preferences. Good luck, and happy editing! --Kyoko 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?"

"The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you."

And the novice was Enlightened. -From the wikimedia edit counter xerocs 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know about editcountitis, but I'm not talking solely about numbers. My approach to an RfA is much like evaluating someone at a job interview. In this case, your record of contributions is much like your resumé: it shows what you've done, how much experience you have had in each area, and how well you have performed in your actions. Administrators take care of tasks which are widely seen as maintenance issues: blocking vandals, deleting pages and images that don't belong on Wikipedia (due to lack of notability, copyright violations, etc.), and protecting pages that are undergoing heated dispute. Your current contributions don't show any experience in these areas, so to use my metaphor, your current record comes across as a mostly blank resumé. Sorry.

Like I said, your apparent inexperience with Wikipedia is something that is easily remedied, though it will take considerable time. I suggest reading this page which lists various subjects that hopeful admins should be familiar with. But above all, I think you should edit more. If you have some area that you deeply care about, work on improving and even creating articles about that subject. Consider joining a WikiProject about a topic that interests you. There are so many ways for you to get involved with Wikipedia, build your experience, and perhaps set you on the road to adminship. --Kyoko 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, while I'm flattered that you like my welcome template, I would have appreciated being asked first before your appropriation of it. You can use the code if you want, but could you please at least change the colours of the template so my welcomes look different from yours? A helpful list of colour codes is available on this page. Thank you. --Kyoko 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your template looks a lot like this template did you ask first? xerocs 06:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. NoSeptember 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome... as you can see above, not much has changed so I believe that I will be taking another long hiatus.... Who let the above said religious zealot into the ranks? While I am on my rant, incidentally, Koko or kyack or what ever your name is, if the code is available for me to read it is available for me to use.... thanks for the link to the hexa color code chart, I just so happen have a copy that came with my copy of macromedia dream weaver when I was in school learning to write HTML.... (here would be where you get the implication that I think you are a douche) So how have things been NoSeptember? xerocs 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's some more free advice; one guy's RfA failed the other day partly because of his use of the word "fucking". As the word 'douche' above is in a similar category, you might want to re-think that strategy. Feel free to run again for RfA, by all means, but I'd strongly heed Kyoko's advice above. Furthermore, personal attacks of the sort you just made are offensive and not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Please don't do it again - Alison ^❤ 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xerocs, if you would prefer seek RfA guidance from someone else, you are free to do so, but I suspect that most anyone you ask will give you the same feedback that I did. I'm no longer inclined to continue guiding you after your last message. I will give you some parting advice: please read Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and civility. These are policies that all Wikipedia editors and especially admin hopefuls should follow. You will improve your chances of becoming an administrator if you abide by these policies. Goodbye. --Kyoko 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbons on your user page

I'm taking on a project of replacing JPEG, GIF, and PNG images of US military award ribbons with superior SVG images... I was about to do the same with the ones on your user page when I noticed your note requesting users not to edit without notice. I also noticed that you have uploaded a ribbon rack image... I can create one with a table and template:ribbon devices that will look much better than your current single-use image, as well as be more easily changed if necessary (see this example or my ribbon rack workshop). Let me know if you are Ok with both/either option. bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your contribs and noticed that its been a long time since you've made contributions ans went ahead and did this for you. Maybe you'll come back someday and notice? Since the image File:Mason medals.jpg is now obsolete, I've nominated it for deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NATO.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NATO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ArmForExMed.jpg

The file File:ArmForExMed.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:IraqCampRib.gif

The file File:IraqCampRib.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:NatDef.jpg

The file File:NatDef.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Salesman of nothing.jpg

The file File:Salesman of nothing.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no evidence of use. Insufficient context to determine how it might be used in an encyclopedic context in the future.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr Tex 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Patrick Erin Mason and crew, Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia (June 24, 2000).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Erin Mason and crew, Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia (June 24, 2000).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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 03:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Airmen in DCUs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Airmen in DCUs.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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 03:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Battle Dress.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Battle Dress.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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 03:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Oscarsite.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oscarsite.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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 03:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PSABdirections.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PSABdirections.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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 03:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:United States Air Force Commendation Medal.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:United States Air Force Commendation Medal.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 seven 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. ★ Bigr Tex 03:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]