Thank you for
your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with
Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the
reversion of clear-cut
vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Plus, please do not use unreliable sources, especially considering much of your editing appears promotional.
Mbinebri
talk ←
17:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm still a little new, even though I've been playing with Wiki for years.
This is your only warning. I suspect you are the same person as User:86.133.52.20. If you make one more edit like the one you just did in this article, continuing the edit war and the WP:BLP violations, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
02:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)In response to your accusations on my talk page, my edits were just and the images were removed from commoms because of your false claim to ownership. If they weren't under a false license, then they wouldn't have been removed. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I have ever been banned but I never have, but it seems that you have and also have been accused of sock puppetry. If you continue to edit in the manner that you have been (using multiple accounts, uploading images under a false ownership, etc) then you will be blocked again. Lady Lotus • talk 15:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
See your talk page for response.
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to upload unencyclopedic images, as you did at
Katia Elizarova, you may be
blocked from editing. Refrain from uploading images you claim as your own or you will be blocked.
Lady Lotus •
talk
16:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Because lazy editors like you fail to enquire. I own the images. I have legally attested all rights in them which I freely offer to use in commons. There is no more proof than that in the world. I shot them, uploaded them, and make them available to all. Please don't accuse people falsely. It is very poor and I hope not reflective of your general editing.
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Katia Elizarova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Refrain from adding back the links from Elizarova's external links as neither of them are verified. Lady Lotus • talk 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Katia Elizarova.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Thomas.W
talk to me
18:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Carpefemme reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you.
Thomas.W
talk to me
18:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
only (
talk)
18:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Carpefemme ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is a result of edit warring caused by editors claiming material I own are not owned by me. They are and I freely give their use. It is poor conduct by those involved and I request that this block be lifted and all parties complicit to this block investigated.
Decline reason:
The primary reason for the block is clearly valid; you breached WP:3RR. It is more troubling that this is over a contested claim of copyright. We error on the side of caution here; once something has been removed for this reason, you absolutely must stop and discuss the issue to the satisfaction that this is not a legal problem. As the discussion below illustrates that you do not grasp the problem and how to avoid this situation in the future, it seems an unblock would be unwise. Kuru (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2013 (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 own the images;
No other person has claim to them), then why did you upload them? You cannot claim ownership of Commons photos, the same way as you cannot claim ownership of Wikipedia articles. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Epicgenius, what Carpefemme is claiming is that he/she owns the copyright on the photos that were uploaded, therefore, the photos should not have been deleted. The photos, however, were direct copies of photos from the Facebook page, so the claim of copyright ownership over the images was spurious to say the least. only ( talk) 14:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry both. But your " I don't think statement" doesn't make the images not my property. They are and have been demonstrated so, and not disputed as to ownership. Yes I offer them for use by anyone. And upload them to commons as my own work for all to use. That is the purpose of commons after all. What is amusing is that you won't accept my ownership of images, with detail of their taking and aparutus provided, as well as no dispute as to ownership exisinting. It is pathetic singleminded editing. Clearly there is some reason why you don't want images using on that page, and also have only been able to rely on my reverting your illegitimate removal of the images by way of claiming policy to allow your personal wishes to be applied. Your actions will come back to you one day. Enjoy it when it does.