User talk:AntonioBu/Archive 1

Images

Regarding Image:DogDefecating.jpg and your false claim of PD-self — I have deleted the image. We take copyright violation seriously at Wikipedia. If you falsify another copyright you will be blocked without further warning. Do not remove this warning from your talk page. -SCEhardT 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the above warning is considered vandalism. If you do so again you will be blocked. -SCEhardT 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Threatening people is uncivil behaviour. You failed to respond to my assertion that it was an admittedly poor attempt at humour. It didn't damage the page or offend sensibilities or destroy anything. I tried to be polite and as an administrator I would expect you would do the same. A civili, 'OK but don't do it again would suffice' but of course you came in aggressively and threatened to block me. I have removed your aggressive comment, would you care to replace it with something more civil and a more reasonable response to the issue instead of, to use an analogy, cracking a walnut with a shotgun? AntonioBu 05:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) No. You ripped someone else's work off the Internet, uploaded it to Wikipedia, and claimed you created it yourself. This is not within the realm of a joke. By blatantly violating copyrights you damage Wikipedia's credibility. My previous message was not intended to be uncivil but rather to convey to you the seriousness of the issue at hand and remind you of the consequences of further violations. Because the message I left you is a warning, it is necessary that you leave it on your talk page or talk page archive. Since you removed the message after being warned not to do so, I have blocked you for 24 hours. -SCEhardT 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice how this admin can't even apply policy correctly? Read...

Copyright infringement and plagiarism

Inserting other people's work into Wikipedia without permission or attribution is unacceptable. Copyright infringement and plagiarism pose serious moral, legal, and reputation problems.

If there is a dispute in good faith over whether a work can be used, editors should err on the side of caution, and remove the disputed work from articles until the issue is settled. Editors who persistently insert disputed material, after having been warned, may be blocked to protect the project. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues, and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.

Fair-use images on user pages are not allowed and may be removed where they are found, which can most often be achieved with a polite talk-page request. Repeated insertion of fair-use images on user pages may be grounds for blocking, subject to the provision above. Another option is to remove the image and protect the user page.

It says editors who persistently do so. The word persistently being on bold on the page in question. Obviously this admin can't understand this even after it was a one off, which I apologised for and was meant in good humour, was inoffensive and not damaging to anyone. Is this the kind of person you want being an admin? AntonioBu 09:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Astoundingly, you have removed the image warning again. If it is missing after your block expires, you will be blocked again. In response to your above complaints, let me be perfectly clear that you were not blocked for uploading the image under a false license. You were blocked for removing the warning from your talk page. This block is in accordance with WP:VAND which states "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." In this case I feel it is necessary for the warning to remain on your talk page (or properly linked archive). -SCEhardT 11:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Bullying

I tried being polite to SCEhardTbutit didn't work. Editors are accountable too. If you have had problems with uncivil behaviour with this person please put the examples on his discussion page. I believe in good faith but obviously my message about deamericanisation is drawing the rancour of American editors.

Also notice how this editor couldn't even be bothered to check up on the image. It appears that it has been released into the public domain anyway! AntonioBu 10:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)