User talk:Jameshfisher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
unblock|Excuse me? Why in hell did I try to edit a page this afternoon and find my username blocked? Apparently I'm a sockpuppet of IP address 81.178.255.5 (User talk:81.178.255.5). Who in the world is this, and how have I possibly been equated with him? Firstly, I was under the impression that the word 'sockpuppet' is used to refer to two distinct usernames used by the same person. As far as I am aware, I have not had, do not have, and would be extremely surprised if I do in the future have, the IP address 81.178.255.5. I realise that Wikipedia is in the spirit of freedom, but does this actually extend to the freedom to block other users with ungrounded evidence and without the right to fair trial? No warnings for the clear vandalism committed by 81.178.255.5, in which I have played absolutely no part, have appeared on my user page, or my user talk page. It seems that I am thoroughly unable now to defend myself apart from on my user talk page, which I cannot imagine, now, that people crawl to check for injustice. I was not aware that Wikipedia was in the business of secret trials? The realisation that this has been going on for the last two years - during which I have made a great many contributions to Wikipedia - shocks me. How many legitimate builders of the Wikipedia community have been exiled since its creation by rogue administrators?
In the spirit of setting an example, as I believe Wikipedia users should, I apologise if I have been rash in my judgement of my executor.
What is your IP address / what is your ISP, its possible you got stuck with a vandal on a shared ip -- Tawker 17:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- As pointed out you have never been directly blocked, so where you got a message about being a sockpuppet from I'm not sure. I also notice you were editing other pages within 10 minutes of posting the above without any administrator here intervening. Collateral damage from blocks does occur and the section in the block message entitled "Innocent?" explains some of this, we also have the {{unblock}} mechanism to help those caught up in such situations. You might also be interested in wikipedia is not --pgk(talk) 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Image:Prof John Matusiak.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Prof John Matusiak.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Minkus 09:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrighted image
I've put Image:Giovanni Battista Gaulli - Triumph in the Name of Jesus.jpg on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 16. It's not a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art, but a picture of a three-dimensional work of art. Thus, it's copyrighted by the photographer. --Fb78 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery
You have in the past edited William-Adolphe Bouguereau. A related article, the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOT (AfD here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 15:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English spelling: fool proof?
Hello, on Dutch Wikipedia there has been some discussion regarding the proper English spelling of the word fool(-)proof. To resolve this issue, we require the opinion of an educated native English speaker. Could you please tell me which of the following variants of fool(-)proof you would consider proper, trusting only on your own intuitive, immediate 'feeling':
- 'Mary-Elizabeth nevertheless managed to destroy the fool proof dishwasher, after melting her foolproof iron and sinking her son's fool-proof boat.'
If you have an opinion about this at all, that is: perhaps such variants all feel acceptable to you. And what about bullet(-)proof, full(-)scale, hawk(-)nosed, brand(-)new, even(-)handed, fail(-)safe? Does the same apply to all? Thank you very much for your co-operation, you could reply here or on my User Talk page. Cerberus™ 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Prof John Matusiak.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Prof John Matusiak.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
