User talk:Renamed user 12euhfu3hf98238h98923h894/Archive/2018/September

Page Mover granted
Hello, The Duke of Nonsense. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AThe_Duke_of_Nonsense granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing!  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  09:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bubble, from Bubble and Squeek.png


The file File:Bubble, from Bubble and Squeek.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned, reason for this image being PD seems dubious. It was made by a British company, so there is no copyright renewal for non-US images."

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. B (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctor of Humane letters
Your round-robin page swap involving Doctor of Humane letters appears to have resulted in a self-redirect and no content. I suspect this is not what was intended. It and a bunch of associated redirects are now tagged for speedy deletion. Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SCI Logo (1999-2005).png
Thanks for uploading File:SCI Logo (1999-2005).png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

John Pringle
Fancy fixing the incoming links after your page move? I've done Template:Royal Society presidents and Template:Copley Medallists 1751–1800. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the red links. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. Can you please specify? Thank you very much. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 21:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When you move a page like that so that the main title is a disambiguation page, you should check "what links here" to see what articles are linked to it. You should then edit those incoming links so that they point to the correct page. I've now done this for James Pringle]], but you shoul dremember this for next time. See the box immediately under the heading at Moving_a_page DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Title card of Chilly Con Carmen.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Title card of Chilly Con Carmen.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

added proposal 2
hi Duke, I have added a [] based on your comments. you can move your comment to proposal 1, if you dont agree with 2. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

 * You’re main account is blocked and you’ve been socking for months... this isn’t how clean starts work. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Courtsey ping.

I know I did wrong but now I edit constructively. And I admitted  I have other accounts on the help desk. So, that really is not evading scrutiny. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 07:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you should request an unblock from your main account 6 months from today. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why I did not originally do that is because I did not realised that WP:SO existed. And I admitted it on the help desk. I have not vandalized for 2 years. So, I don't see why I need to wait 6 months. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 07:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because “I’ve been breaking your rules for 2 years without getting caught!” Isn’t a valid unblock reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tony, About my block, I recently read a thread on ANI about a user entitled "Nauriya" where I had commented on the proposal. It seemed that the editor in question was sanctioned for continued violations, but not for his sockpuppetry which was considered outdated by the involved admins in the matter. I thought that I should confess my past sock puppetry and I would be in a better case than the user above, since his sock puppetry was exposed by someone participating in the discussions where as I have made admitted it myself. I cannot see the logic how that he was not blocked for his sock puppetry but I was, despite never continuing in the behavior that resulted in blocks in any of my previous accounts, as I am here to build an encyclopedia, and not to vandalize. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 18:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not trying to be disruptive though, and I am confessing because isn't honesty the best policy? About the "not getting caught" thing, I admitted that I had other sockpuppet accounts. I'd reckon that would be better than being found out at WP:SPI. Please reconsider. As, I am here to build an encyclopedia, so I do not see the point of banning on something immature I did 2 years ago. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.
 * Another comment: The reason for a user block is to prevent disruption to the project. I, on the other hand, do not need to be blocked in order to prevent disruption as I have not vandalise anything since 2016. Since then, I have written over 30 articles, ranging from Stub to C-Class, with plans to write my first good article. About the “I’ve been breaking your rules for 2 years without getting caught!” point, that was not my intention, and I confessed my sockpuppet account, so I got myself caught, as I thought Honesty is the Best Policy. Please reconsider with the evidence Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 18:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask about that, as he was the admin handling the report. I was going based off of consensus at other recent unblock requests that "Look, I'm a sock who hasn't been caught and I did good work!" is not a valid reason to unblock. I also think the trend of people confessing long dormant sock accounts of late is pretty disruptive (I can count three in the last month or so who have tried the exact same thing you did.) I don't think we should set a precedent that all one has to do to get out of a block is sock correctly and not get caught over an extended period of time: that is disruptive to the project in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may make another unblock request, but I will not be unblocking you at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me correct the case that really prompted me to confess the past socking. This case included admins like Abecedare and Bbb23. On the case's page they stated they won't block him for past socking and Ivanvector on ANI endorsed that decision as well. However, thank you for recognizing that such activity exists, and it is rising. I know that I was only following that trend of revealing the past sock puppetry, although I have not done anything that could be construed as evasion of scrutiny. And I also never repeated any problematic behavior that resulted in the ban on my past accounts. Admin Cyphoidbomb did responded to my confession of past sock abuse, but he didn't blocked me. This shows that not every admin would've blocked me over this. I don't really think that a simple unblock request would be helpful. Since you have already recognized the existence of such trend I believe we should consider a discussion on WP:AN about this. Let me know what you think. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This will be my last response as I feel I've already explained myself above and in this response I'm going to try to be comprehensive. You claim that you were simply being honest, but in fact you were not: you were lying to us since you created this account. You knew you were lying to us, and you even asked if it were possible to confess socking, not once, but twice: one year after this account was created and before you confessed yesterdau. I am actually very sympathetic towards the fact that you were a kid and vandalized. I've joked with an arbitrator that because of high school computer labs, it is likely that every admin under the age of 30 did at some point. I don't really care about that.What I do care about is the lying. You were blocked and had your TPA revoked. You knew how to make unblock requests, because you made so many abusive ones that your talk page had to be taken away. After that, you created two other accounts that were confirmed by a CU and blocked as socks. You then created this account and used it for ~1 year before asking if what you were doing was okay. You were told that the person would need to comply with WP:CLEANSTART, which you hadn't: you still had actively blocked accounts. You then kept editing under this account for another 9 months before confessing. If you had just abandoned this account, waited 6 months, and appealed on the old accounts listing this one and saying you wouldn't sock again, I'd have no problem unblocking you.Instead what we have is a situation where you are playing us by confessing and then expecting that you won't be blocked. Given, that is what lead to this block, but it doesn't change the fact of your dishonesty despite knowing it was wrong (you'd been blocked for socking before!) is the problem here. Wait 6 months without socking, and then appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I will think it over, and if necessary, accept the WP:SO. Thank you. The Duke Talk page, please ping me anywhere else. 20:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)