-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status: File:East West Highway.jpg
| bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
|
|
| This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:East West Highway.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Yours sincerely, JuTa 05:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:Dashrath Stadium.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
- This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Unlikely to be own work, google image link
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
|
Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status: File:H16-NP.png
| bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
|
|
|
| This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:H16-NP.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
JuTa 06:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status: File:H17-NP.png
| bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
|
|
|
| This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:H17-NP.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
JuTa 06:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status: File:H18-NP.png
| bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
|
|
|
| This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:H18-NP.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
JuTa 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:Mechi Bridge with scenic paddy crops.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
|
Rschen7754 04:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
File:Mechi Bridge Entry point.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
|
Rschen7754 04:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herby talk thyme 06:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:Drone shot kathmandu.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
- This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Description says this image was taken by the Kathmandu Post, but the uploader is claiming on work and a CC-BY-SA license.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
|
–Fredddie™ 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:Mechi Bridge entry point India.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
- This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Description says it was shot by Brahmaputra News, but uploader claims own work and CC-BY-SA license
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
|
–Fredddie™ 21:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:Kakarbhitta Entrance from Mechi Bridge.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
- This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Description says it was shot by Mandip Neupane, so at best an OTRS ticket needs to be filed. Also claims own work and CC-BY-SA license.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
|
–Fredddie™ 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
File:State 3 license plate.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
- This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Obvious screenshot with TV watermark on image. At best, could claim fair use, but that is not allowed on Commons.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
|
–Fredddie™ 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bhaskarrijal. I received your email this morning and based on your history, I don't believe you at all. If a government engineer provided you a document that shows the how route markers are designed, then the burden falls on you to provide proof. I use government drawings all the time to create route markers, so I am eager to see what you claim you've been given.
As far as w:List_of_roads_in_Nepal goes, asking a friend to make an edit for you is another form of sockpuppeting. I have already reverted "your friend's" edit. –Fredddie™ 10:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: " Hello there. Thanks for the response. Months ago, I was banned from Wikipedia English because of sockpuppetry and I guess that block lead to my block here in Commons too. I clearly acknowledge the block. And, I have made a strong word that I will be contributing for the good on Wikipedia and its family. Thank you. ~ Bhaskarrijal (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Decline reason: " You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. An understanding of the issue thus necessarily requires an understanding of the abuse. As of 6 May 2020, the version most proximate to the date the Lemofadka sock was created, this talk page contained the phrase "If you did not create the file yourself [...] then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), [and] you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons" (and thrice (!!!)) and the phrase "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (italics and bold in the original). Despite those warnings, and the guidance of the UploadWizard (e.g., File:FEEDER-NP.png), every single upload by Lemofadka was, again, a blatant copyright violation. This is the Commons, not en.wiki. Where is evidence that copyright is understood? Why did you ignore the numerous warnings here and lie about authorship? Why should we believe you ("I have made a strong word ") when you have, again, failed even to make any reference to copyright issues? What licenses are acceptable for the Commons? These are not rhetorical questions, and if you are unprepared to offer genuine indication that issues are understood, you should be prepared to remain blocked. Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
|
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)
|
Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−
|
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: " Now I clearly understand that why I was blocked. I was assuming the Commons ban was because of the sockpuppetry too. Thank you for making it clear. I really apologize for my negligence on all the warnings and policies. These months of the ban have made me realize it. And, I want to assure you that if I did a single proved violation of copyright policy if I get unblocked, I am ready to banned forever. Now, this is the assurance I am providing you because yes, I've used pictures that were available on social media pages without proper licensing as I was really naive about all these policies. And, now I can't prove that they were properly licensed because I neglected it. All I want is a chance to prove that I will be working for the progressive development of information on Wikimedia. Again, I don't mean that I am asking you to put risk on me. Rather, please take it as a final trust. I will try to upload images that were shot by me, firstly, if not, I will take extreme care of the possible copyright violations. Thank you. And, please show me next steps of getting unban if the commitment is not enough. – Bhaskarrijal (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Decline reason: " I asked specific questions and explicitly stated they are not rhetorical (!!!). I provided a reference to COM:BP and the requirement of an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. Despite this guidance, you have ignored my questions and, again, failed to address our criteria. This is not a venue in which you make unresponsive requests until you get the answer you want. As the unblock template cautions, abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked. Эlcobbola talk 16:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
|
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)
|
Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−
|
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: " Thank you for your response. I haven't ignored your questions to be clear. Maybe I presented the answer in a more general way. Here I will be answering all the specific questions.
Firstly from COM:BP
1. Acknowledgment: Yes. I totally acknowledge my block that happened because of multiple and severe violations of copyright policy of Wikimedia by using socks.
2. Appeal: I am appealing this block to be freed as that now I totally acknowledge the block and I am ready to serve for the good purpose. So, blocking me more might not be appropriate.
Now answer to your questions.
3. Where is evidence that copyright is understood? If I get unblocked, I will post with proper copyright configuration. I will try my best to upload photos that are shot by myself. I understand that I neglected the copyright policy earlier. I will go through all policies before posting.
4. Why did you ignore the numerous warnings here and lie about authorship? The reason is my stupidity and naiveness. But now I have realized enough. All the lies about authorship and ignorance of warnings are because of my negligence. This won't ever happen.
5. Why should we believe you when you have, again, failed even to make any reference to copyright issues? I didn't make references to copyright issues because I didn't really know the reason of the block is only the violation. Even more, I thought sockpuppetry is the only reason for my block. I didn't mean to ignore it.
6. What licenses are acceptable for the Commons? Commons accepts Creative Commons attribution license, which attributes the original creator, has 3 layers of licensing and have licenses: CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-Sa, and CC BY-NC-ND. The other Commons accepted license is GNU General public license which is used by GNU programs. Other is, Free-Art license which allows using art without infringing the author's right. The last acceptable license by Commons is Open Data commons where contents are free to use under a free license.
I guess I answered all of your questions. Please place more if I have to answer them. – Bhaskarrijal (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
|
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)
|
Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−
|
Unblock request granted
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.
Request reason: " I went through Commons:Licensing and the links it supplies. So, I am answering the initial question again.
6. What licenses are acceptable for the Commons? According to the licensing page, it says that it Wikimedia will accept media file that is already freely licensed which means one should not pay for the licensed use of that media file.
According to the bottom section of Commons:Licensing page, mostly accepted free licenses (licensed under Free cultural works) by Commons are Creative comons (CC) license, GNU general public license, free-art license, and open data commons. Even under CC licenses, Commons accepts only 3 types of licensing easily and 1 other generally. Media files that are licensed under Public domain of cc is generally accepted. For example, a photo of Mona Lisa drawn by Leonardo. I went through the Public domain page to understand it. Other three types of Commons accepted cc licenses (I went through CC Licenses and CC 0 to understand them) are 1. Cc zero which allows anyone to waive all rights of theirs from their work and hence anyone can use it freely. Other is 2. CC-BY (read CC-BY for that) which allows anyone to reuse redistribute and remix someone's work but doesn't allow to claim those works as own work. The last kind of CC license Commons accepts is CC-BY-SA (went through CC-BY-Sa) which allows to remix and redistribute someone's work but without attacking the original licensing of that work. In CC-By and CC-BY-SA, attribution is required.
Other acceptable license here is GNU free documentation license (GNU License) which licenses files if they meet 3 criteria (The content was licensed on or after 15 October 2018. The licensing date is considered, not the creation or upload date., The content is primarily a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video., The content is not a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual.) And, I copy-pasted those three criteria and I understand those criteria. Also Commons doesnt' reccomend using this licensing as the only licensing because it can be avoided on certain conditions.
Free art licensing is also accepted by commons. I went through Free art license for that. It allows anyone to freely copy, distribute, and transform art works of someone.
Open data commons are also accepted which allows anyone to share, create and adapt someone's work while taking care of attribution, sharealike (license adaptation - I explained that in first paragraph) and it should be kept open.
Thank you. – Bhaskarrijal (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
Unblock reason: " I feel, that now you know, which kind of licenses are allowed in Commons. Happy editing! Of course you know, that after uploading first copyright violation you can be indefinitely blocked again. Also sockpuppetry is prohibited, first use of sockpuppets can lead to indefinite block as well. Taivo (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)" [reply]
This template should be archived normally.
|
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)
|
čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−
|
Thank you. Appreciate it. :) Can I clean up this page? – Bhaskarrijal (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can archive this page. You can create User talk:Bhaskarrijal/Archive and copy all old content there. But you must link the archive from your user talkpage. Just like I did on my user talkpage. Almost every administrator has an archive. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
