User talk:Captainclegg

Archives

/Archive 1

File:H.Mills+M.Sinden.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:H.Mills+M.Sinden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captainclegg shows that yet again you have been abusing multiple accounts. Seeing as you have been previously blocked for the same thing, and had promised not to re-offend, I have little choice other than to reinstate the indefinite block that User:PeterSymonds lifted as a gesture of good faith towards you. Kevin (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read your decisions and reasons and completely understand what you are saying. Believe it or not I have never read the sock policy, but I have now and so do now get the point and gist of it. I apologise and give you my assurance that if you allow me to resume as an editor I will not use Berettagun again, operate only one account and never, ever again run, use, operate or in any way enable a second or subsequent account. Once again, I apologise completely and fully and assure you that it will NEVER happen again. I repeat that I do feel that the punishment is disproportionate, given some other editors behaviour and their 'sentence', but appeal to you all to allow me to resume my place as an editor on Wiki again, given my assurances. Captainclegg (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appears to be substantially the same reasoning and promises you gave here in order to be unblocked in March. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. ⬅ ❝Redvers in a one-horse open sleigh❞ 14:01, 15 December 2009 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

If you look at the contributions Berettagun made, it was used to edit substantially different pages than Captainclegg. Surely that is not a problem? Its like having a household bank account and a business one. Two different pockets. If I have sinned in Wiki-terms again, then I sincerely apologise. It was NOT out of any malice, but please do not permanently exclude me from editing on Wikipedia. Stop one of the accounts permanently if you wish and ban me on the other for a reasonable period, but surely if you look at my past contributions you will see that my edits have only been for the good and for the further knowledge of other Wiki users. I have never abused Wiki for personal, abusive contacts etc. unlike Little grape, who was only blocked for 48 hours after HORRIBLE personal abuse, attempted outing and even advocating suicide. I feel that the 'sentence' is draconian and disproportionate to the 'crime' as compared with some of the appalling behaviour of certain others. I apologise. Please reconsider. I would also like to make it categorically clear that I am NOT Parnathus, neither am I aware of who he/she is, their location or reason for editing. The same goes for Dauntbooks. In my opinion they have been blocked incorrectly and are merely "guilty by association" ie standing up for me against the foul abuse of Little grape. (see the talk page for details)

Decline reason:

per below. You cannot pretend to not know all the details of the sockpuppetry policy, at this stage of your career, and there are clear examples of attempting to mask that these accounts were operated by the same person, such as having conversations with yourself. Since I see no evidence in this unblock request that you intend to stop this problematic behavior, I see no reason to unblock. Jayron32 04:49, 15 December 2009 (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 won't decline the unblock request since I ran the checkuser on you, however I do have a few comments. If Berettagun is your account, it should have been declared as such, either publicly on your userpages or privately by email to the Arbitration Committee or the Functionaries email list. This is very clear in the sock policy. I can't see any reason why this connection would need to be private in this case. This report would also seem to contradict your claim that these accounts edited entirely separate areas.

As for Parnathus and DauntBooks, even if those accounts aren't yours, they've been socking anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples for the reviewing admin:

[1] - using one account to talk to the other.
[2] - editing Mark Sinden with one account, and [3] the talk page with the other.
Having a discussion with yourself at Talk:Stanbridge Earls#Stanbridge Earls and at User talk:Brakspear#Stanbridge Earls.

to name but a few. The account was clearly used in an abusive manner in violation of WP:SOCK. Your previous apology for socking doesn't seem to have done the job does it? Kevin (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the real problem: [[4]]. Just about all of these spurious insertions of 'Marc Sinden' into Wikipedia pages have been by you or your present and past socks. WP is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia, and editors with your sort of agenda simply make it less of a reliable resource, and *perceived* as less of a reliable resource. Many hundreds of thousands of editors play it straight, but their efforts are spoiled by a few who are determined to game the system to their advantage. My suggestion would be for you to go off and start a Marc Sinden fan site, where your efforts will be far better appreciated. This is not the place for you. Little grape (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Suzanne Danielle.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Suzanne Danielle.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of An Evening with... for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article An Evening with... 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/An Evening with... 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. bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]