User talk:Captainclegg

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

Blocked
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)


 * 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. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some examples for the reviewing admin:
 * - using one account to talk to the other.
 * - editing Mark Sinden with one account, and the talk page with the other.
 * Having a discussion with yourself at Talk:Stanbridge Earls and at User talk:Brakspear.
 * 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)


 * And here's the real problem: []. 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)
 * --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Suzanne Danielle.jpg
 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)

Nomination of An Evening with... for deletion
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 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)