User talk:Julian1961

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Disc03B.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Disc03B.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:File:Hans hansulrichrudel1.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:File:Hans hansulrichrudel1.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. Zoo Fari 06:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:File:Hans Erich Hartmann.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:File:Hans Erich Hartmann.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. Zoo Fari 06:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Robert Stanford Tuck.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Robert Stanford Tuck.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 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Philby[edit]

Please stop deleting material from Kim Philby - The entire plot can be found in the article Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and this is in complete accordance with the Wikipedia guideline WP:SPOILER - Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC) That's fine if you're looking up Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy - but if you just happen to be reseaching Kim Philby, and know nothing about the book, then you shouldn't have the whole plot of the novel ruined by revealing the identity of the character based (very loosely) on Kim Philby![reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kim Philby, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC) There is absolutely no need to actually name the character in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy that is based on Kim Philby. It serves no purpose other than to ruin the book for people who haven't read it yet. If it was an article on the book itself then that would be acceptable under the rules of Wikipedia because spoilers are an accepted part of the site. However, this article could be stumbled upon by anyone without realising that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is loosely based on Kim Philby and then have the entire plot spoilt for them![reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Philby. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

As explained above, your PoV is contrary to policy - your reverts are, therefore, considered vandalism.

No, your reverts are vandalism to anyone who hasn't read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy yet!

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Philby, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive to remove irrelevant information that acts as a spoiler for a book that's not directly related to the main article. There's no need to reveal the character's name in this sentence. It is an article about Kim Philby not Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Philby, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I'm not vandalising Wikipedia, just removing irrelevant information that may spoil the enjoyment of the book, television series or film - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. There is no need to reveal the character's name, Bill Haydon, in an article about Kim Philby. If it were an article about Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, then the Spoiler provisions would apply; but they don't in this instance.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 9 June 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).

Julian1961 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I completely understand and accept the Wikipedia policy with regard to spoilers that relate to books, film and television series. If I were to look up an article about the book, film or television series of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy I would expect there to be spoilers in the article. However, I would not expect there to be a spoiler for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy in an article about Kim Philby unless I had already read the book. My point is that it is completely irrelevant to include the name of the upper class traitor in the book that is loosely based on Kim Philby. It does not detract from the article to delete the name Bill Haydon from that particular reference, if anything it enhances the article by protecting all those who are yet to read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Julian1961 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block has already expired. However, it will certainly be imposed if you continue the same behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:23, 13 June 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 is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kim Philby, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

As the result of your block appeal, above, was not posted until after you had carried out your latest deletion, I will not ask for you to be re-blocked, unless you commit further vandalism, such as this removal.
This deletion has been reverted by 7 different editors 17 times to date. In addition, one admin imposed Pending Changes on the article to try and stop the deletions, another admin blocked you and a third admin agreed with the block and warned you "it will certainly be imposed if you continue the same behavior". The consensus of 7 editors and 3 admins is, therefore, clearly against you.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Philby, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.