User talk:Commoncase

RE: BM
I guess it is fine, I'm not really up to fighting about it. Also, I appreciate the civil tone of your post, as I am much more willing to compromise/discuss rationally when I'm approached in that manner. The fact that so much talent from so many promotions worked on BM, does help convince its notability to me. I am still hesitant to add things that have yet to occur, but like I said...I'm not up to fighting about it. Nikki 311  19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Nora Greenwald Shot Bloodstained Memoirs.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nora Greenwald Shot Bloodstained Memoirs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Article_DVD.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Article_DVD.gif I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org 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 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Message moved from WP:AIV to WP:ANI
Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I moved your message on Bret Hart from WP:AIV to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For future reference, block requests made at AIV should follow the "three points" noted at the top of that page. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest notice
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Mc JEFF  (talk)  18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard about your behavior and actions in regards to the Bret Hart article. COIN.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mods?
There are no "mods", we are not a comment forum. There are admins but other than some tools they are the same as everyone else, if you want to make an edit then you need to convince others and gain consensus, not make idle threats about "mods". Darrenhusted (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * - Any reviewing admin should read through Sockpuppet_investigations/Commoncase/Archive - I felt the evidence of abusive sockpuppetry here was quite unambiguous. ~ mazca  talk 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reason is two people both shared the same valid opinion? And that one has not edited in a while? Commoncase (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the only person that thinks otherwise. A word of fair warning, continuous denial will not get you anywhere, if you want to get unblocked, I would suggest that you promise to stick to one account, and not edit disruptively.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I'm convinced that you are a sockpuppet. I said that you should assume good faith on the part of the reporting user and the blocking admin. To quote from our guide for appealing blocks, "It is theoretically possible that the other editors who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably are not, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted." If you had argued why you aren't a sockpuppet even though you seem to be, that would have been a different question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)