User talk:Westj1211

December 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Leschnei. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to ABS-CBN have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Leschnei (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Satcom satellite.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Satcom satellite.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 believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:This is a logo of DASA.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:This is a logo of DASA.png. 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) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

I've closed your post at WP:ORCP. Without at least 6 months of at least 100 edits, there is no chance you will pass a WP:RFA (and the normal requirements are significantly beyond that).

If you want to become more active on Wikipedia, I would recommend participating in deletion discussions or move discussions, improving high-profile articles, or simply editing articles you are interested in on a regular basis. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me directly, you can reply here or on my talk page. (or, use the {{ping}} template anywhere). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had originally blocked you for a week, a more thorough review of your edits makes it clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works that can't be solved in a single week. This is one glaring example, and there are others.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that the lesson was not learned from the previous short block I issued is a good indication that this user doesn’t care about community norms of expected behavior and ignores any attempts at guidance. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I might support an unblock in 6-12 months if it appears they've gained some maturity (and will avoid television-related topics for some additional time), but it's unlikely anything they could say now would lead me to support an unblock now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UTRS request includes more of the same. No bueno.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Westj1211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22248 was submitted on Aug 01, 2018 20:38:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS request was more of the same, declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you can add obvious sockpupettry to the things you will need to discuss before an unblock will be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2018 (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).

Westj1211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel really sorry for doing sockpuppetry, and doing some disruptive editing. I was trying to revert Spshu's edits for a more accurate edit, but he won't listen to me. I tried reverting his edits, because I felt it was inaccurate. Here, I want to ask that I'm sorry and I'm kindly asking to be unblocked. I'm deeply disappointed at why Spshu wants to revert edits a couple of times. And that's my apology. Westj1211 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this request in combination with your UTRS request, it seems clear to me that you do not currently possess the maturity to take guidance from experienced users or to work here - and the socking really is the last straw. I suggest the WP:Standard Offer, and make a new request no sooner than six months from now - if you can manage that with no more socking and then make a mature unblock request, you might have chance of being unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2018 (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.

@Beeblebrox: Copy of the message above: I feel really sorry for doing sockpuppetry, and doing some disruptive editing. I was trying to revert Spshu's edits for a more accurate edit, but he won't listen to me. I tried reverting his edits, because I felt it was inaccurate. Here, I want to ask that I'm sorry and I'm kindly asking to be unblocked. I'm deeply disappointed at why Spshu wants to revert edits a couple of times. And that's my apology. Westj1211 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Iridium 33-Kosmos 2251 collision.ogg[edit]

The file File:Iridium 33-Kosmos 2251 collision.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

low quality, {{self}} is doubtful

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]