User talk:Isnotwen

TALK

License tagging for File:Timbeck5.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Timbeck5.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; 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) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ImageTaggingBot, I have now dealt with your query, Love Isnotwen (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congratulations

Thanks for your kind sentiments; they make for a pleasant change from the pompous hostility that usually riddles my talk page. All the best of the season, Crusoe (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To exclude a source based solely on its Oxfordian provenance is hardly fair. So long as it is relevant, I see nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, the shameless agenda-pushing that seems to characterise this encyclopaedia's treatment of the authorship question, and which has put me off contributing anything further to the subject, makes good faith rather difficult to assume.

Sorry I can't be of any help,

Crusoe (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aggressive Behavior

Hi Isnotwen,

Regarding the warning template you just placed on my talk page—and to a lesser extent, the similar warnings you placed on Smatprt's talk page; as well as the request and accusation you placed on Wrad's talk page—I sincerly think you must have misconstrued my (and, I'm certain, also Smatprt's) intentions, or possibly the relevant guidelines and the applicability of the warning templates. I'll try to refrain from speaking for Smatprt, but for my own part I can assure you I intended neither incivility nor agression toward you. However, if you genuinely feel I have behaved inappropriately towards you do please feel free to avail yourself of either the Dispute Resolution process, or, if you think the infraction sufficiently serious, to file a report on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I would of course encourage you to instead discuss this with me on my user talk page (or here if you prefer), if you have any specific concerns I could attempt to address. In that respect it would be very helpful if you could attempt to express the concerns in your own words rather then the "canned" user warning templates as the latter are quite generic and inexpressive for all but the most obvious violations. Thank you. --Xover (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baconian theory article

Really, my involvement in that article last year was something I'd rather have avoided. This is obviously a long-standing conflict with different people pushing different agendas. I have no more knowledge of Shakespeare than the average person and in general I try to avoid content disputes on articles on which I can't contribute. So I'll have to remain uninvolved this time. I can revert vandalism, the same as I do with every other article, but apart from completely obvious acts of vandalism such as deleting whole sections I wouldn't feel comfortable judging what's vandalism and what is just a contentious edit.

In general, all edits to all Wikipedia articles should be discussed on the talk page. If someone adds something to the article, and another editor undoes the edit, then the two editors who disagree should go to the talk page and try to reach a consensus before either of them does anything further on the main page. If you feel that other editors are being unfair or breaking rules (e.g. inserting pro-Oxfordian material without getting other editors' consensus) you can use the dispute resolution process (the same link as what Xover linked to above). Try to use that as a last resort, though, and go through the steps in the order listed; the previous edit war didn't really go to WP:DR and if someone tried to skip right to the "call for mediation" step it might be seen by others as not wanting to play by the rules. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Baconian theory has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Merry Headcheese!-hexa Chord ² 01:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Barryispuzzled (2nd). Thank you. Xover (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite suspension of editing privileges

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

re findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barryispuzzled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Timbeck5.jpg

The file File:Timbeck5.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]