Marquis de la Eirron

Welcome

Hello, Marquis de la Eirron! 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 using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; 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! Road Wizard (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Images

You need to be able to show where you're getting the images you are posting (including a link to the picture or the page that contains in) and how you know it is a free image. I went to the conservatives.com page for Francis Maude, and it does not have the image you posted, so it is impossible to verify your claim that it is free. If you don't provide the information, someone will nominate it for deletion, and it will be deleted. The same goes for all others without sufficient proof of availability. -Rrius (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I got the images off Flickr by using the Creative Commons section at the end: http://flickr.com/search/advanced/. There by ensuring that the images that I was obtaining were legal and not copywrited as you will be able to see if you go on the Creative Commons section on Flickr.
  • You simply have not got the idea of image tagging. You tell us when the photo was taken and the camera used, neither of which is of much interest. But you do not tell us whence you obtained the image, which is vital. With the one image where you did give a source, File:Esther McVey3.jpg, the source on flickr was clearly marked "© All rights reserved by conservativeparty". I therefore suspect that all the other images by conservativeparty that you have uploaded are also copyvios. Please get your act together: only upload properly licensed images and give the source. If I see another image without source, I shall block you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• If the image says "Some rights reserved by the conservativeparty" does that mean I am allowed to use it and with regard to showing the source where am I supposed toput it??
  • Use the {{Information}} template - that makes it obvious where to put the source. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Better

I hate to tell you this because you have at least tried. But I believe that the licence on Riffkind at flickr is incompatible with the licence we use on Wikipedia as in File:Malcolm Rifkind.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• How will I know whether or not it is incompatible with Wikipedia or not??
  • You will have to do some research in the vast body of help pages here on Wikipedia! But I would say that of the six licence options offered by flickr:
    1. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
    2. Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
    3. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
    4. Attribution Creative Commons
    5. Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
    6. Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

only numbers 4 & 5 are compatible with Wikipedia. But don't take my word for it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, only 4&5 --Simple Bob (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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).

Marquis de la Eirron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

With regard to the sock puppet case, the articles that are mentioned are "The List of British Politicians who have crossed the Floor" and "List of Ethnic Minority British Politicians" are the articles I have created and spent along time finding the politicians and putting their details etc into the article so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to edit them using either of my profiles as its not affecting anyone else. However with regard to the images I know I got it wrong before but when I went on Flicker it clearly states that it has some copywright which I assumed meant that you were able to use those pictures as I clearly gave reference to where I got those pictures from. Also the reason why I created the new account as Comte de Mountstuart is because I wanted a fresh start on wiki to show to people that I was able to edit without being perceived as disruptive but once again even though I don't mean to do it, I some how end up causing a storm with the pictures and so I think i'll just give up with trying to upload images as it just ends up as a failure and gets me in trouble. But my edits are never intended to be disruptive, I just try to help and if you look at the article that are heavily used by me and my IP then you can see all the work that I have put into my Wiki pages to make them more interesting to read but I promise you this I shall NEVER try and upload an image again as there is to much aggravation for my taste.

Decline reason:

You do seem to have used a second account in an attempt to avoid scrutiny, and under the circumstances a week's block does not seem at all unreasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2010 (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.

I actually didn't use it to avoid scrutiny I just wanted an account where I hadn't got in trouble on and I don't want the Marquis de la Eirron account anymore I want the Comte one thats the reason why I swapped in the first place!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 November 2010

I would suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Clean start, which gives advice on exactly what you were trying to do. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Despite repeated warnings, it has been confirmed that you've been using a second account for sockpuppeting. Actually, you registered the new account roughly one hour after your previous block expired, so it's increasingly clear that you did not read the rules. As such, I've indefinitely blocked your account. As always, you're more than welcome to appeal this block if you so wish. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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).

Marquis de la Eirron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Once again I am very sorry as you have been more then tolerent and helpful to me and I did try and listen to you as I was trying to take your advice and do the clean start which was the Political Observation but clearly once again ive failed miserably.

In my defence as I seem to be unable to do so on the accusation page, I haven't actually done anything wrong as if you look at my edits nothing has occured which should cause me to be blocked, I have not vandalised pages or anything so I fail to understand what I have done that is wrong. I tried to do the clean start thing and it completely failed let me do anything. Also I am truly not disrupting the Monday Club since the people who I am adding to the list are actually members of the club so technically the person who keeps deleting the names of those listed is the one who is disrupting and violating the wiki page as they are deleting factual evidence, as in the article it clearly states that 35 peers were members and so I was trying to add those names to the lists but they kept on being deleted for no apprant reason even though they should be allowed to stay on the wikipage as they were members of the club, as its not just One Night in Hackneys page for him alone to edit and if he disagrees with something then it should automatically dismissed as disruptive.

The articles I have just created the one based on the Essex Rebellion, has alot of similar words as I used it as a template for the article that I created but I do hold my hands up and admit to the breach of copyright for the second article which I tried to delete as I realised it was a violation.

All I want to do is edit the articles that I know alot about without people saying that i'm doing it wrong etc such as the Ethnic Minority British Politician one which I created and then got yelled at for putting capital letters in.

I beg you please don't indefinetly block me from wikipedia as I have already stated that I will never upload pictures again and if you please look at the names I put into the Conservative Monday Club page they all clearly state on their wiki pages that they were members of the Monday Club. If you are to delete accounts please will you delete my Marquis and Comte as I would like my Politicial Observation as my clean start as this is the only account that I want and I would like to be known under this account.

Plus if I create other articles I will try not to cause copyright, I really want to be allowed to stay on wiki as I would be absolutly gutted if I was blocked from wiki. If anyone reads this and sees that not everything I do is bad on wiki, as i've created pages from my knowledge and added things when they are known to be true, all i'm asking is for alittle guidence on how to use wiki without being seen as a threat.

I know you have probably heard it before but I really don't wnat to be stopped from editing wiki especially if i know something about the article and I know what is written to be incorrect

Decline reason:

This is not about your editing. It is about your use of multiple accounts in such a manner as to avoid community scrutiny, as I've told you only minutes before you created your new account. In addition, you do not address your copyright infringements adequately; the manner in which you speak of this ("I will try not to cause copyright") makes me doubt that you understand copyright at all.  Sandstein  22:45, 2 December 2010 (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.

• Having already declined one of your unblock requests I will leave this one to another administrator to review. However, I will say that I would not dream of unblocking you if I were reviewing it. After being blocked for abusing multiple accounts and having tried to give excuses for yourself, and having been unambiguously told that you must use only your original account when the block expired, you then created another sock puppet account almost immediately. After all that you say that you don't think you have done anything wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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).

Marquis de la Eirron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not actually asking to be unblocked as I was just wondering is there anyone who can send me the wikipedia policy guide to look at please so that I am able to get a better understanding of wikipedia and how it works, which could potentially help me if I am ever unblocked in the future as I clearly don't understand at the present time what I can and cannot do whilst on wiki and it would be much appreciated

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 5 December 2010 (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.

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).

Marquis de la Eirron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that creating multiple accounts would cause many to believe that I was attempting to avoid scrutiny, but in truth the reason why I created the various accounts was because I was embarrassed that I got into trouble on my original account when my sole intention was to try and bring colour to some articles through pictures and so for creating the numerous accounts I am so very sorry. But I promise you this, just like I swore I would never upload another picture which I have kept my promise to, I will NEVER again create another false account as it makes it look like I am trying to hide away which I can tell you I am not. If you allow me this one chance to be unblocked you shall never have to wonder if another account that is editing a page could potentially be me, as I always keep my word on matters. Also I enjoy editing articles as whilst I have been blocked I have seen articles that need attending to due to certain aspects being mispelt or just plain incorrect, so please allow me this reprieve and I promise I will not take it for granted as being blocked is probably the worst thing you can possibly bring on someone.

Decline reason:

The fact that you created another account less than an hour after the expiration of a block for abusing multiple accounts accounts makes it very difficult to trust any promises you make. Your best bet at this point is to consider the standard offer for blocked users. Don't edit Wikipedia under any identity including as an ip user for several months, maybe try your hand at another Wikimedia project such as the simple English Wikipedia and then request unblock again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2010 (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.

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).

Marquis de la Eirron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am asking to be reconsidered under the standard offer for blocked users, as I have tried to contact other admins but due to my IP also being blocked I am only able to write on my own wall, as Beeblebrox so kindly told me that I might be able to use the WP:OFFER thing with regard to my block

Decline reason:

Then come back in six months and do not evade your block until then. I will protect this talk page for that duration.  Sandstein  22:26, 7 December 2010 (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.

• Heyy erm I have just been checkin my sockpuppets to see how many I have created and there seems to be one called Smillabella on the blocked list and but thats actually not one of mine lol, so unfortunatly u hav blocked some poor other editor who u think is actually me, now for all u know I could be lying so I know u won't unblock it but I have honestly never created that account as its an embarrassing name to begin with and cba the Mary Boleyn fiasco again....So all in all that account isn't one of my sockpuppets i'm afraid!!

Proposed community ban

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Denniss (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)