User talk:(agith)

March 2017

 * Dear reviewing admin, I am familiar with User:VengadorJusticiero. I would recommend an unblock. Not only is this user a much older account, the only commonality they share with that sockmaster is the re-adding the infobox on Stanley Kubrick.   That's it. No insults in broken English like VengadorJusticiero. Lots and lots of users have done the same. Ping  for good measure. Sro23 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit, in which you performed an "undo" to continue an infobox edit war, ignoring an edit notice referencing an established consensus and Talk page discussion? Over the last few weeks, this has been the behavior pattern of VengadorJusticiero and various socks. I have a hard time accepting this as a good faith edit. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Since it was the first one I had seen, I found it very bizarre for a person's Wikipedia article not to have an infobox. Checking the article's edit history, I see the latest edit to be the removing of the infobox, so I assumed it was vandalism. Why I didn't do further research was because I thought it was Wikipedia's norm for every article to have an infobox. And, if I was a sock puppet, I would not do it on an account that is reputable with about a hundred or so edits, just to be inevitably banned. I honestly am not a sock puppet and had no idea of any type of edit war going on in Stanley Kubrick's page, but I do apologize for the carelessness. Agith (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. Please exercise caution in the future and it makes sense to review relevant discussions and history before just undoing someone's edit. In this particular case there is even a notice when you go to edit that there is an existing consensus regarding the lack of infobox. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Donald Trump.png
Thanks for uploading File:Donald Trump.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)