Bigclyde
Duplicate images uploaded
editThanks for uploading Image:Emily Gimmel Navy Wiki.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Gimmel404.JPG. The copy called Image:Gimmel404.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Emily_Gimmel_Navy_Wiki.jpg listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Emily_Gimmel_Navy_Wiki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Emily in louisville 2009.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Emily in louisville 2009.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Emily kim vo.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Emily kim vo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Problems with upload of File:Emily on set 2008.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Emily on set 2008.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Billboard in Las Vegas.jpg
edit
Thank you for uploading File:Billboard in Las Vegas.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Emily Gimmel, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Warning
editRead Wikipedia:Image use policy before uploading any more images. And don't claim as your own work, and freely licensed, photographs which you did not create. You will sooner or later be blocked from editing Wikipedia if this continues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Emily kim vo.jpg
edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emily kim vo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Southern Belles: Louisville
edit
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Southern Belles: Louisville, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://sn.soapnet.go.com/shows/southern-belles-louisville/about. As a copyright violation, Southern Belles: Louisville appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Southern Belles: Louisville has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Southern Belles: Louisville and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Southern Belles: Louisville with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Southern Belles: Louisville.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Southern Belles: Louisville and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Emily2.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Emily2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Emily2.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Emily2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created 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 in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problems with File:Emily2.jpg
edit
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Emily2.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://emilygimmel.com/photos/?album=1&gallery=3. As a copyright violation, File:Emily2.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Emily2.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Emily2.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-en wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Emily2.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Emily2.jpg.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Emily2.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright block
edit
Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you believe this block is unjustified or if you are able to provide a credible assertion that you understand and intend to comply with these policies, you may appeal the block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC){{unblock|I did not u
Bigclyde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not understand wiki 's copyright at first time, and it's all my fault, now i read the copyright page please can you unblock my account
Decline reason:
As you have been "commissioned" to create a Wikipedia page, you have extreme conflict of interest. BTW: Statements in a blog cannot be used as permission to use copyright images. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 11 October 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.
- The first time? For three years you have been egregiously violating copyright, despite miles of warnings above. If you ask me, you should have been blocked years ago. What has happened to make you suddenly care about the rules here? --Jayron32 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry, it's really my first time.Some special things, this account is not my own, I was commissioned by Emily Gimmel to maintain her wiki page, and before I took over this task, this account had left in your system a very bad impression, once again sorry!!! Because i'm new to wiki functionality to add images what is emily's request, I would like to add her photo at her wiki page just right top, but because of the negligence of copyright requirements, i was unblock, and once again apologize.
- by the way,i really want to know how to upload and add Emily' photo to her page,i do have the permition here in her blog http://emilygimmel.com/photos/ or i have upload this photo to flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/54720148@N07/5069927953/ any thing else i should do? please can you tell me or can you help me to do this a bit? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigclyde (talk • contribs)
- No "permission" is provided at emilygimmel.com -- the page is marked as copyrighted by the owner. The creation of the flickr page created only yesterday appears clearly to be another direct infringement. Although the flickr page is outside of our purview -- Wikipedia does not allow the use of any material which clearly infringes on a legal copyright. Even while requesting an unblock here, you were cited for another copyright violation today at Wikimedia Commons. I do not trust that you understand our rules and there is no indication that you will follow them. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Bigclyde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your reply! That was it! Finally I know, I will not try to upload any of Emily Gimmel's photo until she herself upload it.
And i'll give back this wikipedia account to Emily telling her all the things i've met. So you don't have to be worried about copyright setting problems that i will make in the future. I just want this account unblock, and stop what i want to do at the first time because Emily had told me that it does not matter without the photo in her wiki page.
By the way, I apologize for the event uploading pictures yesterday that I was not yet fully understand the copyright temporary that escaping it by uploading pictures to flickr is foolish behavior,I have carefully read Commons:Licensing and many other pages of copyright, and i think i'm ok with wikipedia's copyright setting.
Another questions : I'm the webmaster of Emily's official website[1], if i change the copyright of this page[2] at the bottom to CC-BY ,can your wiki page use this photo?
Thank you very much! Bigclyde (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't seem to understand conflict of interest, among other things. We don't get to write about ourselves or our clients on Wikipedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:29, 12 October 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.
Bigclyde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for show me conflict of interest,I'm new hand and now i know what's wrong i 've done. I promise that this will not happen any more, I will give back this account to Emily, and also tell her not to try to do what i 've done wrong.
please can you unblock it, thank you very much!
Bigclyde (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with JPGordon. Copyright issues aside, there are simply unresolvable problems with you contributing to this site. See Drmies' edit summaries here. POV edits and the conflict of interest means no go.--Chaser (talk) 03:53, 12 October 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.
Bigclyde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks a lot to show me Drmies' edit summaries history, I just get this account those days and then begin to edit on wikipedia.
It 's all my fault to upload photo again and again without copyright, and now i 've get a lesson, could your admins give this account one more chance, i will surely abide by the rules in the future! I promise!
Thanks again for reply me!
Decline reason:
All the issues mentioned above still apply. In addition, you have made it clear that this is a shared account, which is against Wikipedia policy, and is itself sufficient reason for a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 12 October 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.
{{unblock|NO no no, It's not shared account, it's private, I just received the account to add an item only, resulting in a long time stuck on copyright issues, which led to the account's block, don't give the user who had recognized his fault a chance? THANK YOU!}}
- We are done here. If you just "received the account" despite the fact that it has been contributing since 2007, that means the account has been compromised and the person who originally opened it is no longer in control of it. It's either that or everything else you have said is lie. Either way the result is the same: we simply can't trust you to edit Wikipedia responsibly. As such I will be revoking your ability to appeal in this manner. If you wish to contest this block further you may email the Arbitration Committee directly at 'arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org . Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- We are done here. If you just "received the account" despite the fact that it has been contributing since 2007, that means the account has been compromised and the person who originally opened it is no longer in control of it. It's either that or everything else you have said is lie. Either way the result is the same: we simply can't trust you to edit Wikipedia responsibly. As such I will be revoking your ability to appeal in this manner. If you wish to contest this block further you may email the Arbitration Committee directly at 'arbcom-l