User talk:SpongebobLawyerPants

Do not remove the AfD tag from an article under discussion
Do not remove the AfD template from the top of Space Penguins of Tuscumbia while the deletion discussion is ongoing. If, as the sole content contributor to the article, you'd like to delete the article, you may add db-author to the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. —S MALL JIM   17:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And this is a reminder that there is still a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your behaviour. You should read it! —S MALL JIM   17:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Congratulations McGeddon, they blocked my account because of you. Thats your fault''' --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you got your account blocked, because you repeatedly deleted the discussion about the article's deletion. That is entirely your fault. Sergecross73   msg me   19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He started that damned deletion site ! My article will be deleted soon because of McGeddon. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If a subject is not notable, for whatever reason, it will be deleted sooner or later. Sorry, but that's the way it is: these are decisions made by a community of editors, and there's little one can do about it, though I understand it's hard to see your "child" discussed for deletion. Insulting and blanking and edit warring will usually lead to a block; this one will be over in a couple of hours, and then you can choose to move on and write up something else. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but my "personal attacks" were just harsh criticism. I didnt insult anyone, i just questioned the qualification of some wanna-be-experts saying that the article should be deleted without supporting their opinion with reasonable arguments --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course i still think the sources i found are reliable and the article shouldnt be deleted. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then what you should have been doing is working with the process: locate the additional sources, cite them in the article, and explain them on the talk page. Depending on the reaction at the talk page and how many of those editors comment at the AfD, it might be appropriate to leave a short message at the AfD along the lines of "Hi, I've expanded the article with a bunch of new sources. Could you please look the article over and reconsider your opinions?" The closing admin will take that into account at the end of the deletion discussion. Also, the deletion discussion is a discussion and not just a vote: the closing admin looks at the positions presented by the participants, not just a show of hands. If the arguments for deletion aren't reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, the closing admin can (and should) disregard those particpants' opinions.
 * The problem is, your edits went against the process. You removed the AfD tag while the discussion was still open. You blanked the discussion from the AfD page. (Even at the close of the discussion, the comments will be left as a record.) You attempted to close the debate early and clearly in opposition to the emerging consensus on the page. Those actions led to the block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, SpongebobLawyerPants. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:EnfieldMonster.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:EnfieldMonster.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement - it's not CC-licenced, it clearly says "©2011-2014 DinoHunter2" on the source website.

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You should rather stop that troll Barney the barney barney. Its a shame that he exploits the power given by Wikipedia. Look at his latest contributions and you will understand. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enfield Monster. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Stalwart 111  21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of surprisingly, only a week for disruptive editing, disrupting AFD processes, attacking editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. D P  21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Talk:Enfield Monster"
A page you created, Talk:Enfield Monster, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it serves only to attack some entity. Please do not continue to create attack pages, as you will be blocked from editing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you.  Erebus Morgaine  (Talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

''' McGeddon@: Thanks for defending the article, i hope your voice will help to keep it. If you go on Scholar or Books you will even find more reliable sources mentioning the Enfield Monster, which are unfortunately ignored by the other authors who stubbornly want that decent article to be deleted. I cant edit because im blocked for 1 week. Best Regards. ''' --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you want to highlight any particular links that you think should be added to the article or mentioned in the AfD, put them here and I'll check them out to see if they might meet WP:RS. (I tried doing some Google News searching to find the original coverage of the event, but searching by year is seeming a bit flaky these days.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Hello, i found this for example: http://books.google.de/books?id=7AYXAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT27&dq=%22Enfield+Monster%22&hl=de&sa=X&ei=FskZU4q8FoHCtQaw9YCABA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Enfield%20Monster%22&f=false .Its a book written (or published) by Robert Benjamin. Greetings  --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Afraid that's a self-published ebook, which can't be used as a source under WP:SELFPUBLISH. (It actually looks like someone just hoovered up unknown-creatures.com and reprinted it word for word.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway- EDIT: "Psychic trauma" is an inaccurate expression, i actually meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants, you might like my recent post to the AfD. And please accept this helpful advice: stop using bold/big text and stop shouting at everyone who disagrees with you. If you can accept that you won't always get your own way here (no-one does) you could end up being a great asset to Wikipedia. Familiarising yourself with our policies would be a good way to spend your block. —S MALL JIM   14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "People really ought to do a little basic research before asserting "no reliable sources" or "probable WP:HOAX"": Totally agreed, thats why i criticised the user "Barney the barney barney". I´ll try to respect the Wiki. policies. Best Regards. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Found some more books mentioning the creature. In these books the creature is called "Enfield Horror", but thats the same thing. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.de/books?id=fBBPUZjcfQMC&pg=PT105&dq=enfield+horror&hl=de&sa=X&ei=qiEaU5fbLoHAtQbehYHYDA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=enfield%20horror&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=ph0U7gQetNsC&pg=PA34&dq=enfield+horror&hl=de&sa=X&ei=qiEaU5fbLoHAtQbehYHYDA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=enfield%20horror&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=awRgLQi_R5sC&pg=PA39&dq=enfield+horror&hl=de&sa=X&ei=qiEaU5fbLoHAtQbehYHYDA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=enfield%20horror&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=hfhKAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&dq=enfield+horror&hl=de&sa=X&ei=qiEaU5fbLoHAtQbehYHYDA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=enfield%20horror&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=lW7eAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&dq=enfield+horror&hl=de&sa=X&ei=qiEaU5fbLoHAtQbehYHYDA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=enfield%20horror&f=false


 * Wikipedia has a lot of policies and rules that can be very confusing to a newcomer, but at some point you'll have to face the fact that cryptozoology is not considered an actual science. Wikipedia doesn't view the kinds of sources you've listed above as reliable or objective. It's true that we do have many articles about legendary cryptozoological creatures, but the sources we use for these are typically objective reporting ("Mr. A claims he saw a creature") rather than dramatizations or fringe theories advocating the existence of an unknown creature. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some helpful essays
Here are a couple of essays for you. I would recommend you read them during your block, should you intend to work with wikipedia's policies during a deletion discussion. It offers advice on what to do should a page you've made or have a big interest in be put up for deletion.

WP:HELPAFD

WP:SAVE

2.223.97.5 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! Further to the above comment, I'd also recommend a look at WP:AADD if you're intending to address deletions of cryptid articles, so that you can focus on arguments that will get the articles kept. Your observation that the Loveland frog article has "much worse" referencing than the Enfield monster might seem a fair one, but it's an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF - the continued existence of the Loveland frog article doesn't mean that editors had a lengthy discussion about it last month and agreed that it was a fine article which should stay, it just means that nobody ever really looked at it properly and suggested deleting it. Every article should be assessed in isolation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ty --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning
Comments such as those you made at Articles_for_deletion/Enfield_Monster are unacceptable as they show a battleground mentality. It's extremely obvious that it was NOT an "absurd" discussion. Any further such attacks about the people who edit this project OR ridiculously contra-policy and contra-community statements such as that will lead to an immediate indefinite block. Your lack of knowledge about Wikipedia does not give you permission to rail against others, and your extremely bizarre failure to read about notability cannot be used as an excuse. D P  09:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:FrogManOfOhio.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:FrogManOfOhio.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Penguins of Tuscumbia
The Space Penguins of Tuscumbia celebrated their comeback in the French Wikipedia, but were deleted somes days later. Nevertheless i wont give up trying to make them as popular as possible because im fascinated with them. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia does not exist to "make [things] as popular as possible" - it's an encyclopedia whose goal is to report things that are already notable. This might just explain the issues you've been having since your arrival  D  P  17:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear my supervisor, I mean i want to make them popular by writing a decent article about them! The Space Penguins are a notable and relevant topic, but were deleted because of ostensibly "unreliable" sources. Thats why i plan to bring them back. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fourteen separate editors took a look at the sources you provided and agreed that they did not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source - there is nothing "ostensible" here. Your plan at this point should simply be to find some sources that meet WP:RS, perhaps searching for the same kind of press coverage that we found for the Enfield Monster. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will first publish the article and then search for sources, is that OK with you ? --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the WP:ONUS is now on you to provide a reliable source on the Penguins. You can work on a temporary draft article if you like, but since any work would be wasted without a reliable source, it'd be a better use of your time to focus on finding the sources first. --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But the advantage of publishing the article first is that it will draw the attention of more people who could help to find reliable sources as they did in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_Monster . Im now preparing the Space Penguins article. I hope that some Wiki editors will find useful sources. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VileEnfieldMonster.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:VileEnfieldMonster.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — howcheng  {chat} 16:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:VileEnfieldMonster.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:VileEnfieldMonster.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop uploading other artists' work as public domain or CC-attribution. If a third person saw that image on Wikipedia, liked it, and took a copy for commercial reuse on a T-shirt or in a book or something, without paying the original artist a dime, that artist would not be impressed. If you are Rob Morphy and are releasing your own work into the public domain, then that's great, but you should state this very clearly, ideally on your website (Morphy's website currently says "© 2013 American Monsters All Rights Reserved" rather than "all my work is public domain"). --McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is "CC-attribution" and how does Wikipedia define "public domain" ? These things seem to be complicated and Wikipedia is rather strict. I dont have enough time to read Wikipedia´s enormous guidelines, but im sorry if i did a mistake (regarding the monster picture). You can delete it then. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia defines public domain the same way as everyone else does, and if you don't know what a Creative Commons licence is, you shouldn't be uploading images claiming to be doing so under such a licence (as you did for the previous Enfield Monster picture).
 * Image use policy should answer all your questions. Google Images now has a search by usage option which may help you find pictures for articles. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is Wikipedia so strict ? It´s motto is: "The Free Encyclopedia", but there is hardly freedom. You even need licenses / permissions for small unimportant pictures. You need tons of extremely reliable sources to prevent your article from deletion. I worked my *** off to defend the Enfield Monster article. I mean Wikipedia requires much effort. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The motto is "The Free Encyclopedia" because we want to build an encyclopedia with free content. This, if a picture is used here, it should be able to be used anywhere without any restrictions. That's why there are very strict limitations on the use of non-free images and why we require that the license listed on the upload agree with the actual status of the article.
 * I've uploaded images to be used in the project. I took the images myself of a landscape, so I have the copyright to the image. I elected to grant anybody and everybody the right to use the images, for any purpose, requiring only that they attribute the image to me. Thus, the image could show up on another website, a calendar, a t-shirt—intact or edited—as long as I'm credited as the creator (of the original image). —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I cant takes photos of a creature which probably doesnt exist and i cant afford to waste my time by drawing an elaborate picture of the Enfield Monster. I had no other choice than to upload a picture from the internet. I took the wrong one and im sorry for that. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why the general rule of thumb is, "Don't download a picture you found on the internet." And, yes, the rules about images can be convoluted; you're hardly the first person to have accidentally erred in this area. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to edit in a more relaxed environment that doesn't require fact-checking or reliable sources, and which will let you upload any image you find online without worrying about its copyright, you might have an easier time contributing to somewhere like http://cryptidz.wikia.com (which I see is lacking an article on the Space Penguins). --McGeddon (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Space Penguins of Tuscumbia are no cryptids, they are extraterrestrial beings. Actually the Space Penguins were deleted because of the sources, not because of the picture which was accepted. The picture wasnt an artist´s work, it was a sketch drawn by eyewitness Claude Edwards showing one of the creepy alien Penguins. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original Space Penguins article lives on, here. Sort of. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so i dont have to rewrite the whole article, i can just copy it. I will publish the article soon. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't just recreate the article in mainspace. You'll run into the same problems as before. Better idea is to work on a draft of the article in your own userspace, then ask for help finding sources. (A simple way to make a userspace draft here) - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Voronezh UFO incident
Discuss: Voronezh UFO incident

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Horrifying-Voronezh-Humanoids.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Horrifying-Voronezh-Humanoids.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to claim that a sketch drawn by an eyewitness "contains no original authorship" and is therefore public domain. --McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But its not an artist´s work, so you can upload it on Wiki. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference whatsoever whether the image was created by an artist or not - it is copyright unless it has explicitly been released into the public domain - and it is up to you, as the uploader, to provide evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The pictures can be found in several sites, so they must be "public". I dont really know how you define public domain, but i uploaded the pictures as they are available in more than just one site. Im in good faith. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We define 'public domain' the same way everyone else does. And 'good faith' is no excuse for ignoring explicit instructions. If you can't understand Wikipedia policy on copyright, I suggest you stop uploading images - before you are stopped from doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I
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. Direct link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning regarding image licensing
You have now been notified about image licensing problems several times, apparently without any resolution of the problem. This is to put you on notice that if you upload any more images without correct licensing, you will be blocked from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Voronezh UFO incident


The article Voronezh UFO incident has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * the actual incident is obviously a hoax, and it is a hoax that has not received any lasting or significant coverage, only a single day "look what the silly commie paper wrote yesterday" infotainment blip on a slow news day

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Pathetic attempt. I cant find any words to describe this. You desperately try to delete a decent article. Really sad. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, SpongebobLawyerPants, you can address this very easily by following the instructions above -- simply remove the proposed deletion tag from the article (you're allowed to delete this one -- it says so right on the template message itself!), making sure you're put a reason for why the article should be kept on that article's talk page. The proposer of the deletion then has the option either of taking the article to the full Articles for Deletion process, or leaving it be. -- The Anome (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: there, I've done it for you. Wikipedia really isn't stacked against you: if you follow the procedures and ensure your articles meet the notability criteria, it's actually quite straightforward to get them kept. But you have to play within the rules of the system. -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And what about the comment beneath ? Seriously, i have the feeling that Wikipedia is "stacked" against me. The article is OK, the sources are OK, their reliability is OK ... but there is always someone willing to destroy my works. What the hell is going on ? --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Voronezh UFO incident for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voronezh UFO incident 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/Voronezh UFO incident 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, SpongebobLawyerPants, here's what you should do now: if you can show that the content of your article is correctly sourced, follows the NPOV rules, and meets the notability criteria, there should be no problem at all keeping it. You've even got a grace period in which to improve the article, as the AfD process prevents speedy deletion of the article. If you address the issues solely on these concerns, and participate in the AfD process, then you should be fine. If not, then alas the article didn't meet Wikipedia's criteria, but there are many other wikis with less stringent criteria for inclusion, such as those run by Wikia. -- The Anome (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, im not going to waste my time. It is NOT my fault that some clueless admins (i mean TRPoD) think, that the article should be deleted. I rather invest time in my real life than wasting it for TRPoD. I highly doubt that he read the article and its sources. The article is absolutely OK and i see no reason to delete it. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.americanmonsters.com/site/2010/10/voronezh-aliens-russia/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Random
Damn! I wish I was as clever at choosing a username as you have been! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (No response expected.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for demonstrating that you are not here to improve the encylopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  At am a  頭 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC) This is per at WP:ANI. --  At am a  頭 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)