User talk:Carpefemme

November 2011

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)[reply]

Thanks - I'm still a little new, even though I've been playing with Wiki for years.

Katia Elizarova

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)[reply]

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring and possible sock puppetry, as you did at Katia Elizarova. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Elizarova

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both images can be found on Elizarova's Facebook page. If they are yours, then you need to provide proof that you yourself took them, otherwise, do NOT continue to upload the same images to commons after the first images were removed. Again, if you do so, you will be blocked. Lady Lotus • talk 16:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see also on your Wikicommons talk page that you have claimed several images of Elizarova as your own and yet they have all been deleted. Cease your actions of uploading images of her or anyone else under false ownership immediately. Lady Lotus • talk 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your recent edits

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Elizarova external links

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and disruption including copyright and external link violations. Almost every edit you have many so far has violated policy in some way.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. only (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Then why didn't you stop edit warring when warned to stop? Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you just let someone who is completely wrong dictate their will simply because they are an editor and have the colluding assistance of other editors to remove legitimate content and detail. So far my being blocked has resulted in images I own being stripped without recourse from commons, removed from pages and official links also being removed. Hardly a correct proceedure. If an editor decides they are God of wiki for a subject or believe that they know better than reality for image ownership I would always ensure that the correct is represented. I did so, and lost out because I sadly don't posess the ability to use blocking as a censorship tactic. To be honest, It is clear that the speed with such I and not the other party have been repressed, and my owned content stripped from commons, is because there is no ground to stand on against my ownership or wish to ensure accuracy is not replaced by subjectivity. It is sad. I was not warring, the other party had no grounds to remove or dispute and still doesn't, but because they are an editor I lose out and stupidity as well as singleminded subjectivity wins. A real demonstration of quality editor-ship. (Sigh)

That is no excuse for edit-warring, and aside from that we have absolutely no control over what goes on at Commons. Intent means nothing with regards to edit-warring, only the deed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IM SORRY. So I am just supposed to accept the actions of an editor in removing content. And what is their repurcussion for being on the other side of the edit war? What is recourse for their attempts to remove valid owned content from both pages here and.. commons. I'm not clear what you mean. But it takes two to tango, it just so happens that when the other party is an overzealous uninformed editor bent on removing legitimate and owned content, rightly licensed by me for use and inclusion, that they win. Come on. Even you must see it isn't exactly okay for that to happen.

There are rules here on Wikipedia, rules that are intended to protect both Wikipedia (which is why the image was deleted as a copyvio) and for example the subjects of biographies (which is why we don't accept FB and Twitter links that haven't been properly certified as belonging to the subject of a biography). And since you, during your short "career" here on Wikipedia, violated just about every rule there is, you got blocked. You claiming that you are right, and thinking that you are right, doesn't change anything, and doesn't give you the right to break the rules (such as the three-revert rule), because on the Internet anyone can claim anything, whether it's true or not. It's as simple as that. And blaming everyone but yourself in your unblock request is not going to help you get unblocked. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from I own the images. Demonstrated so. And indeed continue to do so. No other person has claim to them. There was no dispute as to this. The editor just took it upon themselves to make up their own mind. All the regulations for image submission were followed and indeed I gave up rights entirely to the public for the images. Also the fB page is sanctioned and as you should know ( and please do quote your rule for external links) Twitter verifies at its own pace and that does not mean that pages are not official simply for not carrying a little symbol on the feed. Any response to that since it is you @Thomas.W who has supported the removal of images that were not in dispute as to ownership and also official links to pages. It just seems a little bit editor backing editor and not at all thought through.

Then why did you upload the images to Wikipedia, where it can be seen and used by anyone? Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am happy for them to be given rights free to the community. That is a pretty stupid question.

No, it's a pretty legitimate question. If you didn't want the images to be used by just anyone (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Carpefemme seems very intent on not following guidelines of Wikipedia and doesn't quite grasp what Wikipedia is and is not. It's not a fan base and not a place to upload numerous pictures to claim as their own to only post them to a personality article, the only article they basically edit. I find it ironic that 2 years ago, Carpefemme opened a discussion on Elizarova's talk page about adding images and says "I'll see about uploading images that are free use. There seem to be some available to download from events—Carpefemme" and then somehow appears at 2 events for Elizarova and claims the images also found on a fan page facebook as their own. Lady Lotus • talk 15:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's interesting because one of the photos Carpefemme uploaded is from "early 2011" yet in November 2011, Carpefemme had no access to any photos of Elizarova. To own the copyright on the images, Carpefemme would have had to a. taken them or b. hired the person who took them. I don't think either is the case here! only (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'd stop while you're still behind. It's obvious you created the page, wanted images for it, and decided to claim images as your own in order to put them on the page. You've uploaded 7 images to the commons of Elizarova ALL claiming them as your own and they have ALL been removed. Which means other editors and administrators have found that they were under a false license. As did I which is why I flagged them for removal. And continuously uploading images under a false license is just ONE of the reasons you're blocked. Lady Lotus • talk 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]