The blocking of your account is arbitrary and unjust. Appeal. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The links added were valuable resources for article development (and in one case used as a reference by another editor). They were not remotely inappropriate, nor were they advertising. See also my comments at the Wikiproject Spam talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur, the links are helpful to editors and are not commercial or inappropriate in any way. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now emailed him. He may not realize that he's not blocked from editing his talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Jamesfranklingresham has linked to the pages of a renowned British academic institution which, inter alia, gives free lectures on a variety of topics. I cannot see that any of his links are not germane to each topic. Administrator Hu12 has got this badly wrong and has blocked Jamesfranklingresham indefinitely without so much as a discussion or warning. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
No proxy unblock requests. — Stephen 10:12, 1 July 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.
{{unblock|I do not believe that any of my activities could possibly be counted as spamming, as the relevance and quality of the links I have posted will attest. I have posted numerous External Links to in-depth but accessible academic lectures specifically on the relevant subjects concerned with the Wikipedia articles. These have all been good additions to the quality of the relevant pages and have increased the on-line assets available to the researcher. Therefore, I have no doubt that any review of the content and relevance of my links will dispel any worries over the possibility of these links being considered as spamming.}}
You account has been unblocked by another administrator, I am a third so you are getting lots of attention. I can see how this series of edits might have come about in good faith and I have had a good look at this site you are linking to which I rather like. However please could you desist from linking to this site again. Please read WP:COI and WP:EL. The fact you have "gresham" in your user name presumably means you are linked to Greshams? The COI guidelines states in this case you should propose the links on article talk pages not add them yourself. Also just adding links to a site is not regarded by everyone as "helping". Wikipedia isn't a link directory: good links on topics really belong in the open directory or somewhere else not here (unless they are sources or particularly relevant). --BozMotalk 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the links I have seen so far by this editor are directly relevant and suitable for inclusion. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This warning is inappropriate. There was nothing wrong with the links. The person who blocked this user is also getting lots of attention today, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents and in various other forums. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this Michael Hardy and I clearly disagree. Anyway, there is a simple process of appeal for blocks which you now understand. You also have seen links to policy statements which explain what you may and may not do. I am sure you can work it out from here. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) --BozMotalk 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo, I think you're leaping to conclusions. You seem to say there's a conflict of interest. But are you inferring that from anything more than a similarity of names? If so, you haven't investigated enough. But even if there's such a problem, it's only a reason to be cautious about certain pitfalls, not a reason not to post these links at all. They are relevant on-topic links. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A similarity between the James Franklin listed everywhere as communications officer for Gresham College and a user id of jamesfranklingresham? How strange of me to think there might be a link, indeed it is so obvious that it is almost a proof of good faith. I am in no doubt these were good faith additions and good quality ones too: I also think Hu12's actions were predictable in the circumstances. The community likes the links so I repeat as per WP:COI when it isn't just you work for but pretty much your job is publicising Gresham that proposing links on the talk page is correct etiquette. --BozMotalk 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume Hu12's actions were done in good faith, but they were FAR too extreme. He didn't just say "You should be cautious in these situations were a conflict could reasonably be perceived"; he actually blocked the user and seemed to think Jamesfranklingresham's contributions were not in good faith. Isn't there a policy that Hu12 should have assumed good faith? Like sending him to prison when there was only grounds to suspect him of overdue library books. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A warmer welcome for you - with lots of useful links to help you[edit]
Hello, Jamesfranklingresham! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James, I have emailed you with an offer of my help in contributing to Wikipedia. I do hope you haven't been put off by today's unfortunate incident. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you'll remember me and the Gresham external links problems of a few months back. At the time I learned my lesson and have since been merely suggesting links on the chat pages of Wikipedia entries. This has worked for a handful of pages, but the majority seem to have had nothing happen to them (because, I'm sure, simply no one has seen them). (Good examples include: Steve Shirley, The Last Mughal and Thomas Gresham). The last thing want to do is cause the type of fuss I did last time, but it seems that clear that the Wikipedia pages would be really improved by the links, so I was looking for advice about whether I could be the one to post seemingly clear links such as these. (I come to you because you were against a Gresham person posting Gresham links, and also because you were helpful last time (thank you!)). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the three you mention anyway, they are good links. Ask me some more in a few weeks or ask someone else! DuncanHill might do a few given his comments last time --BozMotalk 10:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Lord Phillips Gresham Special Lecture 05 - Lecture potrait.JPG[edit]
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Now done. Sorry about not getting it first time round. Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I missed the deadline! Oh dear. I had originally created the page because it seemed comparative to other lecture series at other institutions that received their own lecture page. The reputable sources, I presumed, were the external links to the online versions of the lectures themselves (being able to view the lecture itself seemed beyond doubt of the authenticity of the lecture existing). I thought that the notability would be sufficiently justified by the speakers themselves. But I bow to superior Wikipedia style awareness (thought I might move it to above the Will in the Gresham College article, where it seems better placed). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jamesfranklingresham. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page. Message added 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Jamesfranklingresham. You have new messages at Elephantsandbacon's talk page. Message added 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi, thanks for creating this article. I made some modifications according to our style and journal article writing guides. As a substantial new article, it is eligible for "Did You Know..." on AP's main page, so perhaps you should nominate it for that. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You have done a lot of work on the article. Thank you very much for doing that, and apologies for not getting it together better before and so not needing so much work from others! I will go through all your changes and learn for the next one I do. Thanks! Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of the Reih Bleeaney Vanannan[edit]
Notification of automated file description generation[edit]
Your upload of File:Barnards Inn Hall - back of hall.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jamesfranklingresham. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
File permission problem with File:Carolin Crawford at Emmanuel College Cambridge 2010.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Carolin Crawford at Emmanuel College Cambridge 2010.jpg. 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 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1Veertje (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Lord Phillips Gresham Special Lecture 05 - Lecture portrait.jpg[edit]
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 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1Veertje (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Gresham College grasshopper.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Gresham College grasshopper.jpg. 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 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1Veertje (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Gresham College crest.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Gresham College crest.jpg. 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 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1Veertje (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Gresham College crest.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Gresham College crest.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).
I really enjoyed your article on Edward Faragher. Just beautiful. The prose is a little too artistic and not encyclopedia-like, but that made it fun to read. I am not sure if you're still blocked, but if not, I hope to read more new articles from you. Gold Broth (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
