User talk:Nosephbroseph

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rklawton (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:DouglassDavis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DouglassDavis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 10:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, It seems to me that blocking my account immediately does not follow wikipedia's terms. In regards to alleged vandalism, wikipedia states that before a user is blocked they should be given full warning. This did not happen. It seems I should have been given some warning, or at least engaged in a discussion regarding the material that constituted the blocking. Also, it is interesting to me that you have deleted many of my edits on pages which contain multiple examples of poor wikipedia edits. These edits you left in place.

(Nosephbroseph (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC))


 * If you're looking for something to do, you might want to read Vandalism-only account. Regardless, you're just making Baylor look stupid and racist (again).  Rklawton (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Baylor? Im not sure I follow. (Nosephbroseph (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Are you referring to the college? I saw that it is your alma mater. If that is the case, I have no idea what you are talking about.