User talk:Mcrfobrockr

Welcome!

Hello, Mcrfobrockr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Like You Crazy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Like You Crazy

A tag has been placed on Like You Crazy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. tedder (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Renfue. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bongo matic 10:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editing

Hey there, Mcrfobrockr. I just wanted to remind you to be careful about editing when you're logged out; it doesn't look like you were notified, but we had a request recently to look into a possible instance of sockpuppetry involving you. I've taken a look at the request, and from what I can tell it looks like you got logged out somehow and continued editing by mistake. Since there's nothing to indicate you meant any harm by it, I've closed the request with no action. I just wanted to let you know about that, and give you a friendly reminder to keep an eye out for it in the future. Happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Bongo_matic 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at User talk:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Bongo_matic 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Black Veil Brides and Renfue

Hi Mcrfobrockr

I have reviewed the Google and Google news archive searches for the two bands you are focused on. My conclusion is that they do not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. MySpace, Facebook, their own web sites, for example, do not meet the "reliable source" criteria. Likewise, I find no evidence that they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, which would permit inclusion even if they don't meet the general notability guideline.

I see you have also been improving other articles. I would recommend that you consider making improvements based on reliable sources (and citing them) rather than just inserting personal knowledge. Indeed, finding sources for unreferenced claims in articles on topics you care about would be a good way to develop your editing and sourcing skills.

Good luck, ^Bongo_matic 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides

User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^Bongo_matic 03:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue

User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article 30 Seconds to Mars, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You should know this by now. tedder (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers

Please see Template:Infobox musical artist; under the genre parameter it states: "The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)." In this case, it should be rock and not soft rock to aim for generality. Using other articles as an example of doing something incorrectly goes against WP:WAX (this is about AfD but really could apply to several other things like this). Also, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you do not tell other editors that they are to stop editing an article unless they are vandalizing it. Please be civil when communicating with other editors. Chase wc ⁹¹ 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "Everyone else is FINE with soft rock"? I have contested the use of soft rock as opposed to rock, and so has another editor. Even so, that is not a valid reason when what everyone else is supposedly "fine" with goes against what the template documentation says to do. Please stop ignoring that the doc states that and please stop trying to use other articles who do not abide by the documentation as an excuse for this article to go against it as well. Your editing is disruptive, warrior-like, against what most likely consensus was gained on at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, and I will seek administrative action if you continue editing in this manner. Chase wc ⁹¹ 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you get about "other editors are fine" does not excuse that we are going against what the documentation is saying to do? Also, there was another editor who did not agree with your change. Please learn what a genre warrior is, following with Wikipedia policies is not genre warring. Whatever. I'm not even involved at that page so why bother. I'll just let that article go against it like everything else. It's still not right. But I'm done. Chase wc ⁹¹ 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Fireflies (song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. 猛禽22 ^•• 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mcrfobrockr. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue (2nd nomination)

User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AlbumArtTheMoment.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AlbumArtTheMoment.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for your review ?

What's wrong with Huntly for your review Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides

User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^Bongo_matic 23:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking my account indefinitely?

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm appealing to this block. It says that I am blocked indefinitely because I was abusing multiple accounts: Atlantic Deep. I'm not really sure what this means, does this mean that I'm sockpuppeting a account named Atlantic Deep? If this is true, I've never heard of another user called Atlantic Deep. I was blocked without any warning also. I suddenly logged into my account to improve an article and suddenly it said I was blocked.Why have I been blocked INDEFINITELY? I've only ever been blocked once and only for a couple of days or hours during a edit war but this situation is not even relevant. The user who blocked me User:Tiptoety has barely even stated any reasons for blocking me. He/she didn't even post anything on my talk page. Also what have I done in violation to the rules for this block? I haven't done anything wrong, not that I know of. There is no evidence that I even know of Atlantic Deep or even associated with him/her. So how can I possibly be a sockpuppet? If this was an accident or mistake I request it to be undone immediately. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Since you edited anonymously immediately after posting this -- no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 11 June 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

(Read above) Well, I had to edit anonymously after that, because I was forced to. I couldn't edit anymore with my account. So I had to edit anonymously. And there is still no evidence or proof that I was using Atlantic Deep has a sockpuppet. I'm not even interested in the Atlantic or anything like that. I don't even have the same interests as him. And the contribution log does not list any evidence. How is it possible? I am clearly not a sockpuppet of Atlantic Deep. I think this is unfair, and the administrator User:Tiptoety could have warned me or something, instead of blocking me without any notice. It also says I am a "confirmed" sockpuppet of Atlantic Deep [1]. Confirmed by what? By who? What proof? Why did this even happen? I am very confused. I think we should have a discussion about this first.

Decline reason:

Per below. CU-confirmed sockpuppet. T. Canens (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (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.

Please see my comment on my talk page. I have CheckUser evidence from commons, and spoke with a checkuser on this project who confirmed my findings. Tiptoety ^talk 06:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This block may be upsetting but I am unable to do anything much but ask you to think about this, it might be that you used to use a different account and shall we say, lost the password to the account and decided to make a new one instead. If that is the case, it may be a good idea to try to remember the password to the old account and if it is not blocked, resume editing from there. I myself have been unable to edit at school before I got myself an account because I was a victim of collateral damage, so I know how a block feels. Hopefully you would be able to understand and hopefully you might become a good editor in the future. Usual people in life (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Oh sorry I see you are unable to edit with the other account listed, maybe if you thought up a good reason to be unblocked with AtlanticDeep you might get that account back if you act kindly. I hope I might have been of assistance to you. Usual people in life (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

(Read above) I saw the comment on User:Tiptoety's talk page and all it stated was that he was a checkuser in the Wikipedia Commons and has me confirmed as a sock of Atlantic Deep. But the point is WHERE is the EVIDENCE? And how can I be confirmed if I'm 100% sure I'm not a sock of him. Even another editor Bongomatic questions this block. I have not had such a good relationship with Bongomatic in the past but thank you for questioning and helping :) And also this is what he stated and what I agree with on User:Tiptoety's talk page "There is no mention of that user (or indeed anything recent) in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep/Archive." On my own user page it says check the contributions for evidence. Where? I can't see any. Therefore I have come to a conclusion of 3 reasons. 1. I am being framed. 2. User:Tiptoety could possibly be lying. (No offence intended) 3. Someone else did something with my IP address (I'm not into something this technical so this reason might not be legit) and then went on Wikipedia and did something with it. Therefore User:Tiptoety says I was a sock. But the main part is I want evidence of this. And I also want my editing rights back. Please discuss this below. And do try not to discuss this on someone else's page, because then I will not be able to participate because I am blocked. And at Usual people in life: Atlantic Deep is not mine, so I won't be able to know the password of it or even get into it for that matter.

Decline reason:

It is extremely improbable that behavioral and checkuser evidence would link you with an account with which you were unrelated. Since nearly every user who tries to use multiple accounts claims to be innocent, I have to give more weight to the behavioral and checkuser evidence than to your own claim of innocence. If it is indeed true that it is purely by coincidence that someone else is using your computer to make edits similar to yours, I apologize for the bizarrely improbable coincidence that has resulted in your block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 14 June 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

(Read above)Well, I'm honestly being genuine this time. I don't have any other accounts, check the contributions for evidence. My reason for this unblock is still the same s above. And you are citing the checkuser evidence is saying that I am sock. WHERE is the evidence?? I've been asking this for a long time. Those I still believe in those 3 reasons. And no one else has been using my computer. And please don't dismiss this as other pointless appeal. I'm getting sick and tired of this.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but with two different checkusers confirming the facts, no admin will step in to undo the block. Your best bet, as mentioned below, is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. TN X Man 13:26, 15 June 2010 (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.

Non-Admin Comment Unfortunately, since the evidence is Checkuser based, it is impossible to show it to you. Only certain highly trusted, capable administrators who have identified themselves to the Wikimedia foundation are allowed to use the Checkuser tool. Showing you the data, even just concerning yourself, would violate several policies that are in place to protect privacy. If you are honest about being innocent, the best route to go would be to contact the Bans and Appeals Subcommittee of Arbcom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. They are the only people who would be able to look at the checkuser results, and may be able to help. Sodam Yat (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try and email them. Is even a screenshot not allowed? But I still don't understand how I suddenly could be convicted/accused of being a sock of someone I had never had any conversations/edit wars/anything like that before. This actually sort of reminds me of Stalin's show trials of the Old Bolsheviks. And according to this page [2], he has 223 sockpuppets? How could someone have that many? Mcrfobrockr (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

(Read above) I've emailed them, but they haven't replied yet. What I don't get is how two checkusers suddenly accused me of being a sockpuppet. Are you sure they've got the right person? And who are the two checkusers? User:Tiptoety and who? My three resons are still as listed:
1. I am being framed.
2. User:Tiptoety could possibly be lying. (No offence intended)
3. Someone else did something with my IP address (I'm not into something this technical so this reason might not be legit) and then went on Wikipedia and did something with it.
I've eliminated number 3 already. If I decide to make a new account since I can't use this one anymore, won't that one also be marked of a sock of this one then?? And so on if that one gets marked? That's why I'm unsure what to do. How did I get into this mess anyway? And I for sure haven't even vandalized anything, check my contributions. How am I in anyway related to Atlantic Deep then? And how could anyone possibly have 223 sockpuppets? [3] Answer these questions for me please.

Decline reason:

You have been advised that this will ONLY be dealt with by ArbComm, based on the nature of the block. As you're now accusing a verifying admin of lying, I am removing talkpage access for the duration of the block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:31, 16 June 2010 (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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Orphaned non-free image File:Ivylies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ivylies.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paramore emergency screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paramore emergency screenshot.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Versa Emerge.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Versa Emerge.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paramore emergency screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paramore emergency screenshot.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AnnaWilliamsTekken6.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AnnaWilliamsTekken6.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Like You Crazy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Like You Crazy, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Like You Crazy

Hello Mcrfobrockr. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Like You Crazy.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Like You Crazy}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:A Promise To Burn.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Promise To Burn.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).

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) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FHTheMoment.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FHTheMoment.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).

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) 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]