User talk:(agith)

(agith), you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi (agith)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

On Wikipedia, this is the only account I have created. And, viewing my contributions, none are hostile edits towards a greater demand of purpose, controlled by a person implementing multiple accounts. I solely casually edit on Wikipedia, with mainly correct inaccuracies or add a minor detail to the conversation. For edits that do violate Wikipedia's policies, they have been classified as good faith. Agith (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Accepting editor's explanation and rationale, socking concerns mitigated. Laser brain (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewing admin, I am familiar with User:VengadorJusticiero. I would recommend an unblock. Not only is this user a much older account, the only commonality they share with that sockmaster is the re-adding the infobox on Stanley Kubrick. [1] [2] [3] That's it. No insults in broken English like VengadorJusticiero. Lots and lots of users have done the same. Ping Laser brain for good measure. Sro23 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@(agith): Can you please explain this edit, in which you performed an "undo" to continue an infobox edit war, ignoring an edit notice referencing an established consensus and Talk page discussion? Over the last few weeks, this has been the behavior pattern of VengadorJusticiero and various socks. I have a hard time accepting this as a good faith edit. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was the first one I had seen, I found it very bizarre for a person's Wikipedia article not to have an infobox. Checking the article's edit history, I see the latest edit to be the removing of the infobox, so I assumed it was vandalism. Why I didn't do further research was because I thought it was Wikipedia's norm for every article to have an infobox. And, if I was a sock puppet, I would not do it on an account that is reputable with about a hundred or so edits, just to be inevitably banned. I honestly am not a sock puppet and had no idea of any type of edit war going on in Stanley Kubrick's page, but I do apologize for the carelessness. Agith (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Please exercise caution in the future and it makes sense to review relevant discussions and history before just undoing someone's edit. In this particular case there is even a notice when you go to edit that there is an existing consensus regarding the lack of infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Donald Trump.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Donald Trump.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]