User talk:Helicon Arts Cooperative

Username policy violation
Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Our policies prohibit the use of user names that appear to represent or promote a company, group, other organization or a product, and as a result your account has been blocked from editing. If you wish to continue editing, please consider reviewing our username policy more thoroughly and then creating a new account. If you feel this block was made in error, you may ask for a review of this username block by adding the text below this message. Thank you,  Sher  eth  18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) {{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=

Orphaned non-free image File:Yesterdayposternew.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Yesterdayposternew.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI complaint
This sockpuppet complaint concerns you: Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're still requesting unblock, you need the previous requests still up, rather than blanking them. I'm not clear; are you saying that you shouldn't be held responsible for conflict of interest because the person who pointed out your use of multiple accounts was using multiple accounts himself? Or are you actually saying that, despite the fact that you've used at least six different accounts for the sole purpose of promoting this film, you actually are not in any way associated with the film or its makers? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You are still not clear? I really don't know any other way to say it. Let me try it this way: Just because Debussy-Jones has said that this (and other) accounts have been used to "promote" a film, does not make that a fact -- especially when the COI investigation resulted in a ruling that the accounts in question were not making promotional edits to any articles. Or I can phrase it thus way: Editing pages about a film and actors does not equal promoting that film or actors. The accuser has been editing these pages ceaselessly since I was blocked. By your own logic, he (and his sock accounts) are therefore "promoting" the film as well. How about this: block me from ever editing any of the pages that you are so convinced I am "promoting". That should solve the problem, right? Frankly I have no interest in editing pages any more that Harold has taken ownership of. He is too possessive of them. Let him take "ownership" of those pages and allow me get a fresh start editing other things. Helicon Arts Cooperative (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)