User talk:Marquis de la Eirron

Welcome

 * }

Images
You need to be able to show where you're getting the images you are posting (including a link to the picture or the page that contains in) and how you know it is a free image. I went to the conservatives.com page for Francis Maude, and it does not have the image you posted, so it is impossible to verify your claim that it is free. If you don't provide the information, someone will nominate it for deletion, and it will be deleted. The same goes for all others without sufficient proof of availability. -Rrius (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I got the images off Flickr by using the Creative Commons section at the end: http://flickr.com/search/advanced/. There by ensuring that the images that I was obtaining were legal and not copywrited as you will be able to see if you go on the Creative Commons section on Flickr.
 * You simply have not got the idea of image tagging. You tell us when the photo was taken and the camera used, neither of which is of much interest. But you do not tell us whence you obtained the image, which is vital. With the one image where you did give a source, File:Esther McVey3.jpg, the source on flickr was clearly marked "&copy; All rights reserved by conservativeparty". I therefore suspect that all the other images by conservativeparty that you have uploaded are also copyvios. Please get your act together: only upload properly licensed images and give the source. If I see another image without source, I shall block you. &mdash; RHaworth 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the image says "Some rights reserved by the conservativeparty" does that mean I am allowed to use it and with regard to showing the source where am I supposed toput it??
 * Use the Information template - that makes it obvious where to put the source. &mdash; RHaworth 19:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Better
I hate to tell you this because you have at least tried. But I believe that the licence on Riffkind at flickr is incompatible with the licence we use on Wikipedia as in File:Malcolm Rifkind.jpg. &mdash; RHaworth 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How will I know whether or not it is incompatible with Wikipedia or not??
 * You will have to do some research in the vast body of help pages here on Wikipedia! But I would say that of the six licence options offered by flickr:
 * Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
 * Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
 * Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
 * Attribution Creative Commons
 * Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
 * Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons
 * only numbers 4 & 5 are compatible with Wikipedia. But don't take my word for it! &mdash; RHaworth 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, only 4&5 --Simple Bob (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't use it to avoid scrutiny I just wanted an account where I hadn't got in trouble on and I don't want the Marquis de la Eirron account anymore I want the Comte one thats the reason why I swapped in the first place!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 November 2010


 * I would suggest you take a look at Clean start, which gives advice on exactly what you were trying to do. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Despite repeated warnings, it has been confirmed that you've been using a second account for sockpuppeting. Actually, you registered the new account roughly one hour after your previous block expired, so it's increasingly clear that you did not read the rules. As such, I've indefinitely blocked your account. As always, you're more than welcome to appeal this block if you so wish. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having already declined one of your unblock requests I will leave this one to another administrator to review. However, I will say that I would not dream of unblocking you if I were reviewing it. After being blocked for abusing multiple accounts and having tried to give excuses for yourself, and having been unambiguously told that you must use only your original account when the block expired, you then created another sock puppet account almost immediately. After all that you say that you don't think you have done anything wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Heyy erm I have just been checkin my sockpuppets to see how many I have created and there seems to be one called Smillabella on the blocked list and but thats actually not one of mine lol, so unfortunatly u hav blocked some poor other editor who u think is actually me, now for all u know I could be lying so I know u won't unblock it but I have honestly never created that account as its an embarrassing name to begin with and cba the Mary Boleyn fiasco again....So all in all that account isn't one of my sockpuppets i'm afraid!!

Proposed community ban
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K 303  09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Denniss (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)