User talk:Nefirious/Archive 2

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Fire Crown Productions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fire Crown Productions 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/Fire Crown Productions 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. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem
I do not understand the big deal. The website is more than reliable and the author clearly claims that he is an expert in the field of SEO and is a journalist who has written articles based on secondary and primary sources. Do you not have anything better to do ? Why are you obstructing someone who is trying to spread legit knowledge ?


 * Hi, please join the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard instead of here and on my user talk page. Thanks! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Legal action will be taken...". This, right after your block for sockpuppetry expired. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But this does not validate a block as I said account will be reported which naturally means within wikipedia. I also said legal action will be taken, but did not specifically mention what as I took it for granted that the user would assume I meant within Wikipedia. I do not have the time nor resources to take action against anyone outside wikipedia naturally. Nefirious (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be so good as to explain what "I will take action in Wikipedia against your threatening gesture" means? What sort of action were you thinking of? Peridon (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your wording here is quite clear and very specifically a clear threat of legal action. Subsequent comments indicating that you meant within Wikipedia do not cancel out this threat, nor indeed do they explain it. To achieve unblock you will need to make a clear and unambiguous statement that you have not taken and have no intention of taking, any legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editors in respect of any edits made within Wikipedia in editing threads with which you have been involved, or which relate to you or to your edits.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"  13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please define legal action. The term legal action varies in its definition. Did I specify what kind of legal action I was talking about ? Clearly no. If there is an incident inside a school, legal action can be taken within the school without having to go to the authorities. When I did not specify I what kind of legal action I was taking, you cannot get sentimental and ban without any notification. Also I made it very clear on the talk page of the edit that it would be within Wikipedia. Please use common sense and do not blatantly ban editors who work hard to create scholarly articles. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC) I would suggest that you being an administrator please read WP:LEGAL. It clearly indicates that "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved". Nefirious (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The section from WP:LEGAL (with which I am familiar) which you quote deals with perceived legal threats, where there is potential for misunderstanding. Your threat is clear and not susceptible to misunderstanding, and your later attempts to modify it do not amount to a reason to unblock. As I have said we must see from you a clear and unqualified retraction. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure if you understood WP:LEGAL. It clearly says that a person needs to be notified about his actions before he is blocked. I was not notified, and also blocked within minutes.I am saying repeatedly, I made it clear on that User's talk page that I was talking about a legal action on Wikipedia itself. I am making myself clear again that I had no intention to take any sort of legal action against the Wikipedia user or against Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedia editor myself since last 10 years and have more than a thousand edits. It would be nice if you can unblock me so I can get back to editing articles that I created and add more value to Wikipedia. Nefirious (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the third paragraph of WP:LEGAL. It is very clear. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am saying. There was a misunderstanding. The administrator banned me as he assumed there was a legal action involved. Which I made clear on the talk page that it was on Wikipedia. Please refer the entire WP:LEGAL article so to have a clear understanding of what perceived threat means and amounts to. I have already made it clear that it was not my intention. Nefirious (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your unblock appeal remains posted; I think as I am clearly not reaching agreement with you it is best that I withdraw, and see if another admin puts a different interpretation on your words, as quoted in the link I posted above. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you took that personally. I am just trying to get the facts out from WP:LEGAL. The administrator who banned me, banned me without any notification or warning, neither did he take the time to clear it out. Nefirious (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have still not cleared it out. "Legal action will be taken" is not one bit ambiguous. You were also asked another question right after your unblock, and you haven't responded to that either. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FTR, regarding warning about legal threats: the blocking admin did not warn the editor before blocking, but they had been warned and had removed the warning but chose to post a new message to my talk page instead of retracting their legal threat. So a warning had in fact been issued and acknowledged (although whether it was understood is a different matter, given the subsequent discussion on this page.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Check your talk page. I clearly said legal action on Wikipedia. After the warning I made it clear on your talk page that I meant Wikipedia. My statement was misinterpreted by the user as the user's native tongue is not English. I removed the warning because it had a threatening tone. I got banned within 5 minutes of the warning. I was not notified by the administrator. User Bonadea is not authorised with banning anyone as this user is merely an editor like me and many more. Kindly revert the decision in compliance with legal threats Thanks Nefirious (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is getting increasingly tiresome, you're complaining about being misunderstood as their native tongue is not English. "Legal action will be taken" is clearly not ambiguous at all and for someone complaining about another user's ability to comprehend the language, you should know. While you were provided with a warning, a warning or duscussion is only required to clear doubts of ambiguity. And as asked by Peridon earlier, what is this action that you are planning to take? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Spaceman Spiff - Saying something without understanding the actual meaning is called misunderstanding. I don't want to beat around the bush. Like I said. I am saying again. I never meant I was taking any legal action. If I wanted to I would not be here asking administrators here to unblock me. I am saying again, please unblock me as I mean no harm to Wikipedia or any of its editors. I myself an editor of Wikipedia understand the policies and I will comply with them. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you given serious thought to either fulfilling my conditions or answering Peridon's question? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Periodon's question ? You mean what sort of action am I willing to take on user Bonadea. She threatened to ban me, even though she is merely an editor like me. So naturally, I will raise the question on Wikipedia Dispute board about her false claims of being able to ban me. Nefirious (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Warnings" (not threats) are valid, no matter what user provides them, and if a user "threatens" to take you to ANI to discuss a ban, it's also valid. None of those claims are "false" - you're simply wikilawyering, and showing a lack of competence overall .... is that really the face you want to put forward here?  ES  &#38;L  22:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * EatsShootsAndLeaves it was a warning and not a threat. What do you have me do to uplift the ban ? Need a note or something to clarify about my actions ? I can provide that. I am sure there is a way to resolve this. Nefirious (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop removing declined unblock notices, next time you do that your talk page access will also be revoked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And now using sockpuppets for block evasion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You claim that you will abide by the guidelines if your block is lifted, but you have been violating Wikipedia rules by creating sock puppets to circumvent your block, and using those socks to edit in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies, and in violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. And frankly, this reaction doesn't indicate that you think Wikipedia's guidelines are particularly important. To get an administrator to lift your block you'll have to show that it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia if your block were lifted, and breaking the rules while blocked doesn't help with that. --bonadea contributions talk 18:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat (amending) and socking
Having skimmed through your Wikilawyering above, the question still remains. Have you withdrawn your threat of legal action against any other user? Have you concluded your legal action against any other user? These are simple questions requiring simple answers. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you used any other accounts to edit? Please list them. I assume we will need a checkuser as you have waaaay complicated this with socking. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Stealing Mary.jpg


The file File:Stealing Mary.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Artistic description of a Trident.jpg


The file File:Artistic description of a Trident.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Proposed deletion of Bar clamp adapter pin


The article Bar clamp adapter pin has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per WP:NOTDIC, no reason this topic needs a whole article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 02:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)