Abovfold

Final warning for uploading copyrighted images that do not fall under fair use criteria

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie Why is this not fair use? Final warning? Utkin is a public figure intimately important to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is a uniquely valuable photo with media coverage discussing the photo itself. It is a fine candidate for fair use. I edited it and waited for its resolution to be reduced to degrade the image and keep it minimal, and I provided reasons to satisfy each section. Abovfold (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You will be blocked if you upload it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You're being obstructionist. Why did you take this action? Abovfold (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Because you obviously haven't read Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use. I'm not discussing it further here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And a new picture taken by anyone but the man himself wouldn't show anyone the tattoos concealed under his clothes, hence why this photo has news articles written about it which I linked in my rationale, which met the requirements of section eight just above that. And you could choose not to be rude, but I know its how all senior editors here treat people. It turns people off and its killing this platform. Abovfold (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If I may provide a third (or rather fourth) opinion, I understand both the fair-use claim and its rejection. I don't yet entirely understand the deletion, which should probably have been delayed per WP:F7; the chosen criterion F9 is about "obviously non-free images (...) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use", both of which is not the case, as it's neither obvious nor not claimed to be fair use.

The main concern I personally see with your behavior, Abovfold, is that you have repeatedly removed a speedy deletion tag from your own upload, which is something "the creator of a page may not" do; see the introduction of WP:CSD. The template Template:Di-disputed non-free use rationale specifically told you so. I'm also concerned by your statement "laughed out in two wikipedia forums" in one of your edit summaries there, which rings alarm bells regarding off-wiki harassment as it happens too often in such venues. The place to find a consensus about this is on Wikipedia, probably at WP:FFD, without off-wiki canvassing or whatever else happens when people are amused about Wikipedia's discussions from the outside.

I'm not concerned about the uploading itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your edit to Chen Wenqing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Diannaa: You removed text I had in properly attributed quotes, including lines that are very important to get precisely right in a biography of a living person like “arrests and purges accelerated rapidly under [the subject of the BLP]”) and, in attempting to defend copyright, your edit summary pointed to an illegal digital copy of the complete text of the book I purchased legally in print. I’d urge you to use a bit more restraint as you lock out previous edits so there can be no modification or repairs of this article I’ve built from nearly scratch across hundreds of edits, and perhaps reflect on the fact that in embedding that link to a free copy of one of the seminal texts on the topic of the page you have undoubtably done more to damage the commercial opportunities of copyright holder than the few sentences I included in the article did. Cheers Abovfold (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The contents of the book had actually been published in two different locations online. That is beside the point, because it matches the content of the copyright book from which you copied. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for your creation of 29th Fighter Division, and, helpfully, your updates on the divisions -> brigades changeover!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Purposely removing Wikipeida maintainance template is a vandalism. So stop your vandal. It has nothing to do with censorship.EditQ (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s pretty deceitful. You added a citation needed template after removing the two citations attached. That whole edit was reverted because you were attempting to edit war your viewpoint and delete dissent. I’m not sure why you’re trying to conceal the relationship between this school and the MSS spy agency, but I have asked for citations before and you have never chosen to provide any. - Abovfold (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hubei State Security Bureau

Thanks for your excellent work on the regional state security bureaus. With all the recent attention on the Hubei State Security Bureau, do you think it yet merits its own article? - Amigao (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao Ha thanks. I would like them all to have their own, and certainly this weeks US OFAC/UK HM Treasury action probably justifies it. I’ve been compiling information about each of them at User:Abovfold/Sandbox/Organizational Structure of the Ministry of State Security, but I just haven’t had any free time to do substantial writing lately. My citations on that page from Intrusion Truth have a lot of detail on the Hubei SSD. If you want to create the page, go for it. Hubei SSD, if I recall, is one of the few that has photos of the HQ on the Commons. – Abovfold (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Abovfold. Thank you for your work on Hubei State Security Department. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for continuing to build the pages related to the Ministry of State Security; this one is appropriately referenced from independent sources. One a minor issue, I've edited to consistently format 'APT 31', but Cyberwarfare by China uses APT31 and the sources on this page are mixed. So, either form seems fine, but I recommend consistency on a page. It also might be worth considering whether APT 31 should change its redirect to point here.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Klbrain I had given thought to that, overall I think just using APT numbers as designated by Mandiant is the tidiest looking, however it seems some groups become more infamous under names and designations from other companies naming schemes so it’s hard to pick and choose what name "sticks" unless it were to become a Wikipedia site-wide norm. Even whether there’s a space between APT and the number is inconsistent. I expect once more information becomes available about the Hubei SSD becomes available, it will be appropriate to separate the APT into its own page, and I’d probably title it based on which name gets the most Google searches.- Abovfold (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)