Watercolor121

Blocked

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ kurdî ∙ la .lojban. ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Someonepaki.
Please refer to logs and contribs for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

{{unblock|Please unblock me, I'm NOT a sockpuppet of [[Someonepakistani]] or [[Someonepaki]]. [[Someonepakistani]] is a cousin of mine who usually stays for weeks in my house and thus it is obvious that if he would use my internet then the IP addresses would be the same for both users. It is definately not a ''logical'' reason for this blocking action.}} {{unblock|Please unblock me, I'm NOT a sockpuppet of [[Someonepakistani]] or [[Someonepaki]]. [[Someonepakistani]] is a cousin of mine who usually stays for weeks in my house and thus it is obvious that if he would use my internet then the IP addresses would be the same for both users. It is definately not a ''logical'' reason for this blocking action.}}

Hey, on what reference did you block me? So your technology stuff tells that Someonepakistani's ID is having similar relations to my ID. Well Someonepakistani is a cousin of mine who usually stays for weeks in my house and thus it is obvious that if he would use my internet then the IP addresses would be the same for both users. It is definately not a logical reason for this blocking action. (Watercolor121 (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC))Reply

In this case not someone (=you) with a good record of contributions on this project was accidentially blocked because someone from the same IP did something bad. No, you did the same bad things - only. If your story is true - I dont believe because the story is illogical already by the timeline of account creation and account use - this is called meat puppets and is exactly the same. You grabbed the same images, you laundered from flickr, the same did the rest of the sockpuppet troop we have here. As long as you not mention with one word what you did, what you learned, why you did this and what you will not do again the unblock request here is quite useless. This account is used only in abuse of our licensing policy, no matter with or without sockpuppetry or meat puppetry or even without any of those. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I accept the date of creation gives a huge doubt. However, the thing happened was, when Someonepakistani was blocked, he introduced me to editing pages on wikipedia (as I have interest in making articles and stuff) and that's why I joined it after some days he was blocked. HE gave me those images and told me to use them in articles. I had no possible idea that they were copyrighted material. I uploaded them to Flickr first, and later I posted them here. I have truly learned my lesson. I promise to act professional on wikipedia and respect its policies. Please I request you Martin to unblock me. (Watercolor121 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC))Reply

Why did you upload them to Flickr first? Rocket000 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because when someonepakistani introduced me to Wikipedia, he told me that it was the proper way to post images on wikipedia, he told me that by this way, my images would be secure. I had no idea this was all a fake idea of him that could lead me into so much trouble! (Watercolor121 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC))Reply

I may again point to this three users:

1) Someonepaki - created 07:32, 24 August 2010, left 08:39, 30 August 2010

2) Someonepakistani, created 10:22, 30 August 2010 - left 18:40, 1 September 2010

3) Watercolor121 - created 19:06, 5 September 2010 (created on Commons(!)) - now blocked.

Your account creation was later the problems User talk:Someonepakistani had (he apparently not understood that "free to view" does not mean free to copy or free to claim authorship). Obviously you not came here because you discovered Wikipedia on your own but your appearance here is connected with Someonepaki disappearing. Besides the technical similarity. Your account is only a continuation. Also im puzzled by your wording "[...]that by this way, my images would be secure" - I emphasize the word MY. Its not your images and it does not require an academic title to separate between things that I created and can call my own and things that I just grabbed from elsewhere and that are not my own. Your repeation of that "my images" claim is concerning. --Martin H. (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (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: "see above"

Decline reason: "Unblock request does not hold up under scrutiny — and agree with assessment of the blocking admin. -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2010 (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: "Please unblock me, I'm NOT a sockpuppet of Someonepakistani or Someonepaki. I ACCEPT MY MISTAKES AND APOLOGIZE. WHAT ELSE IS LEFT?"

Decline reason: "I am not convinced that you would, if unblocked, contribute positively to this project. The kind of thought pattern that leads one to the conclusion that uploading images to some other site before uploading them here, to "secure" them, is a perfectly normal and logical thing to do doesn't reassure me. And for a "professional photographer", concepts like copyright should not be foreign to you. Furthermore, users normally only get one unblock request. Asking again won't help. Sorry. Rocket000 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2010 (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） ∙ +/−

File tagging File:British_Pavilion_with_Queen_Victoria's_Statue.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:British_Pavilion_with_Queen_Victoria's_Statue.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:British_Pavilion_with_Queen_Victoria's_Statue.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Captain-tucker (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic