User talk:Another Four Plasmids

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Another Four Plasmids (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Even though I didn't violate policy, I see that some took objection to my user page. I'm willing to defer, so I'd appreciate an unblock.

Decline reason:

You still haven't answered the question of why you kept transcluding another users page over your own. Until you stop rules lawyering I for one have no interest in unblocking you. Also, is this a permanent undertaking to behave? I will defer means what? — Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block

I have blocked you for harassment. If you post to your talk page pledging you will permanently stop this behavior, I will remove your block. Crum375 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question before acting on the unblock request

Could you explain why you thought it necessary to repeatedly impersonate SlimVirgin by transcluding their userpage over yours, despite repeated requests to stop doing so? If you can explain that adequatesly, and assure that you will NOT do it again... you may be unblocked... --Jayron32 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tacked the word "Dadaism" to the page, which is a reference to a major 20th Cent. art form. To say I am impersonating or harassing someone is assuming bad faith. Another Four Plasmids (talk)

That's not an answer to Jayron's question. Luna Santin 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't impersonate anyone, nor pass myself off as a sock of another user. We likely never edited the same articles.Another Four Plasmids (talk)

Claiming adherance to a relatively obscure art movement simply to justify transcluding another users page on top of yours is disingenuous at the least. In simplest terms, 90% of other users would not understand this oblique reference, and are likely to be confused by your actions. I still have seen NO assurance that you intend to cease this activity. Point blank: Can you understand why this is wrong, and will you stop if unblocked? -- Jayron32 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy against transclusion. To say I am disingenuous is, again, assumption of bad faith. Blocks are based on policy and nothing in WP:HARASS, which was given as justification, describes my actions. WP:INDEF says that indefinite blocks are "applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." That doesn't match this case. Another Four Plasmids (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Four Plasmids (talk) The desire to maintain what several others see as a blatantly disruptive act under the guise of "It ain't written that I can't, so I can" is rediculous Wikilawyering. You were asked to stop. Not every rediculously disruptive thing has been written down, and that doesn't mean you have the right to hunt for a way to get away with something. Again, yes or no, will you stop doing this?!? --Jayron32 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked under a policy that you agree I didn't violate. Saying I hunt "for a way to get away with something" is, once again, assuming bad faith. Must you insist in tossing accusations at me? Another Four Plasmids (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Another Four Plasmids (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not violate policy. I did not attempt to harass anyone, per WP:HARASS. I am willing to defer, yet I cannot admit to violating policy that is not extant. Let's assume good faith. See also discussion.

Decline reason:

I see no reasons to assume good faith after reading discussion below. MaxSem 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, I wish you'd reconsider. I didn't violate policy, although I see that some took objection to my user page. Another Four Plasmids (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this correspondence, I would not agree with your statement that you have not violated policy. SlimVirgin is a Wiki Administrator, and correctly claims this status on her user page. You have transcluded this claim onto your user page, and claiming admin status without possessing it is a breach of policy.

You persist in declining to answer a perfectly straight question; are you prepared not to transclude other users' userpages onto your own? I would suggest that you have a simple choice here - make this committment or stay blocked. Your decision. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Donabarbaralogo009.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Donabarbaralogo009.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Victorialogot008.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Victorialogot008.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Escalera al Cielo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Escalera al Cielo 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalera al Cielo 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Raymie (t • c) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:La viuda de Blanco.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:La viuda de Blanco.jpg. 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) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]