User talk:Orbicle/archive2

Mayerling image

Are you sure the image you just added is from Mayerling? I'm pretty certain it's am image from the 1956 film War & Peace in which Audrey and Mel Ferrer also co-starred. 23skidoo 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work! I stand corrected. 23skidoo 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orbicle, an admirer of Vivien Leigh--Wbrz 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice

Hello, Orbicle/archive2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortkey

Hi, just wanted to let you know a sorkey is available for categories: {{DEFAULTSORT:Noun, Article}}. Once placed in a page, all categories and stub templ. get sorted accordingly. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Anna Maria Ferrero, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Anna Marie Ferrero

I did send you a message to give you an opportunity to post hang on on the article. However, you neglected to mention how well-known the person in question was and I have never heard of her. --Bookworm857158367 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete your article. I'm not an administrator and don't have the ability to delete articles. An administrator apparently looked at the article and felt that it warranted speedy deletion. All I did was post a tag on the article and a warning message on your page, giving you an opportunity to put a hold on message on the article. As I recall, you said the woman was an actress. I would not have deleted it had you said, for instance, "She is notable for starring in a number of films. Will add the names later." Just saying she's an actress doesn't cut it and, frankly, not everyone is going to know who the subject of an article is. That's why you HAVE to put in the very first sentence, the first time you hit "enter," what she's notable for (or at the very least a bare-bones explanation.) If you didn't have time to do that, maybe you should have waited until you had time to write a more complete stub. I had no way of knowing what she was famous for and neither did the administrator who actually deleted the page.

As for the other speedy deletion notices I've put, the vast majority of the articles appear to have been obscene or incoherent messages that any reasonable person would label "nonsense," one-line bios written by teenagers saying "so and so is handsome, sexy and cool," "a band that has no demo is cool," blatant ads advertising their company's page or MySpace site or attack pages, also by teenagers, saying "so and so is (unprintable.)" Every single one of those articles has to be vetted by an administrator before it is deleted and other people have an opportunity to object and remove the tag if they decide I'm wrong, as I notice they have done in some instances. That's fine and as it should be. I don't think that type of article belongs on Wikipedia. If your subject is as notable as you say she is, submit the article again and this time SAY what she did in the first line. --Bookworm857158367 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:It Started In Naples.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:It Started In Naples.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tracy Hepburn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tracy Hepburn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:La Mujer de las Camelias.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:La Mujer de las Camelias.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:I'lBe Seeing You.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:I'lBe Seeing You.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1ggjqTe9bgHHeCX9tho0jrhbR71hdeTgr.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1ggjqTe9bgHHeCX9tho0jrhbR71hdeTgr.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Postcid.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Postcid.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Aller/Deception

Thanks for the additions to the Deception (film) article. I'd always wondered who was playing for Paul Heinreid! J. Van Meter 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd be interested

Our CC "friend" seems to be back, and keeping busy at Vivien Leigh. The same person editing VL is one of the CC anons, who was actually warned for bad edits on the CC page and another editor who has also been editing VL, has requested unprotection for CC. I think we had approximately one day of peace, not that I'm counting, but it was nice. This is tiresome, I am sure you will agree. Cheers Rossrs 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and I will try to keep your advice in mind. I've reverted an act of churlishness - adding a couple of "cite needed" tags to info that is already cited - but other than that I'll try to restrain myself. If things get too much for me, I could always try my hand at editing Japanese Wiki. I don't speak Japanese but familiarity with a particular language doesn't seem to be a prerequisite. ;-) Rossrs 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mme Curie.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mme Curie.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Highest Mountain .jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Highest Mountain .jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six-handed cellist

"Paul Henreid's hands were tied behind his back and two actual cellists were used in the close shots--one placed his right hand through Henreid's right sleeve and worked the bow; the other placed his left arm through Henreid's left sleeve and did the fingering." --- That's wild. Thanks for that. J. Van Meter 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0730150712 32.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:0730150712 32.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Orbicle. I just wanted to thank you for starting the page for Charles Kay. It was long overdue for this fine actor to have a page here. It is also nice that you have included so much of his stage career. Too many UK bios here at wikipedia only have their film and TV roles noted (speaking of which I have just added several of these performances to his page). Living in the US I know that I am missing a large part of so many of my favorite actors careers because I don't get to see them on stage. Have you been in the audience for any of the plays Mr Kay has been in? Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Irene Worth.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Irene Worth.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —An gr 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunshine Boys

I noticed that you did a lot of work on this article. Check out the recent changes. --Best regards, Ssilvers 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mso.five0306 big 2.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mso.five0306 big 2.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the John Barton (director) article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Jkelly 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this account is currently active. I would appreciate it if you respond with some explanation for the plagiarism at John Barton (director). Without a response from you, I have no way of knowing if this was an isolated incident or an ongoing problem. Jkelly 20:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this issue to WP:AN for further input. Jkelly 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the infringement, I have blocked you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Ursula_Thiess.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ursula_Thiess.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that although I posted the first version of this image, the second version and its fair-use rationale was added by another user: (see below)

Fair use rationale for use in the article Ursula Thiess 1. Image is used solely for the identification of the subject. 2. The image is readily available on the source website, and the further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder. 3. The subject of the photograph is living, however a modern image of this person would not convey the same information. An image of this person at the time of her notability is more representative, and this image can not be suitably replaced with an equivalent modern image. 4. A free image has not yet been located for this person. Rossrs 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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).

Orbicle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for Copyright infringement

Decline reason:

While you claim you learned your lesson on Gianna Rolandi, you turned around and used copyright information on Nicola Martinucci a day later. How is that illustrating that you learned your lesson? I removed content you lifted from Sparknotes, an amazon review, a fan website, etc. Your copyright violations were extreme. We are still working on cleaning it all out. — IrishGuy ^talk 00:29, 11 April 2007 (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.

to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.

Respectful request for unblocking

of my account in order to be able to continue to work on and contribute to Wikipedia. My past contributions though it has been pointed out to me contained a fair amount of copying have included a substantial amount of serious and important edits, mainly on film, classical music and opera, theatre and a variety of other subjects. I believe that the seriousness of their intent and style will show that my predominant aim was to introduce articles on subjects which required them.

Example

Much has been made by one contributor to an article I wrote on Gianna Rolandi. This was my first or second contribution to Wiki, when I still had no idea of the prevalent rules. The material I obtained was from a press release from the Lyric Opera Chicago. While I was still editing the article, the "copyright violation" tag was added to the article when I did not even know what it meant. When I became aware of it, I immediately contacted the LOC and immediately obtained their express authorisation to publish the article. When I was advised by another user that this in itself would not be sufficient and that permission was not all that was required, I edited the article to a stub and deleted all parts of it that came from the original release.

Example

The article which caused the most recent furore was an article on the British director John Barton. As I explained, my aim was to provide a short article on an important man of the British, subsidised theatre who was missing an article in Wikipedia. I started one as a stub, based on half-a-dozen easily verifiable facts from a reliable source, one which attempted to fill in a much-needed gap. My article contains facts which can either be regarded as plagiarism, copyright violation or research forming the basis of a longer article.

Example

Another user has made a compendium of some of my edits and a certain number of other users have provided a detailed analysis of examples of where they found cases of copyright violations. It has been equally rewarding to notice that several other users have analysed some of these edits and have found an absence of copyright violations. Enough to suggest I think that my purpose here has not been to cause havoc or vandalise but to make serious contributions. I do not know for certain how many articles I have contributed to since February 2006, but I am fairly certain that they exceed the

There is no doubt that when compiling an encyclopaedic article, there will be many occasions that there are certain factual pieces of information ("Hamlet" is a play by William Shakespeare; Marlene Dietrich was a German-born actress, entertainer and singer," which will resist any attempt at paraphrase. I accept that there will be occasions when entire phrases will appear. I shall certainly need to be extremely careful to make sure that I avoid such pitfalls in the future. At the moment, I am unable to attempt to remedy any previous transgressions I may have made since I am unable to edit my previous pages and therefore have no means to put them right. In addition, the administrator who blocked me and who had no involvement at all in any of my previous edits has refused to unblock me.

I am therefore making an appeal here to other administrators who, while not wishing to become submerged with a blow-by-blow analysis of more than a year's worth of active contributions, might nevertheless consider that my case, based on the few examples given above, is nevertheless a valid one and merits a fairer consideration than an "indefinite" ban.

Thanks Orbicle 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Project discussion

Do you still have access? If so please see the note on the Opera Project talk page. - Kleinzach 09:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewing admins

Orbicle has been a regular and valuable contributor to WikiProject Opera for nearly a year. This incident is disruptive to the project and admins' time, and shows carelessness on Orbicle's part. But given Orbicle's longtime contributions and the idea that blocks should be preventative, not punitive, there's general agreement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera that we would have confidence in Orbicle if s/he stated clearly that s/he understands the policy, apologizes, and agrees to proceed in accordance with all the rules. Fireplace 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Kleinzach 00:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gmaxwell/orbicle Jkelly 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request

Hi, I was one of the people who went through your edits, and I'd like to see you unblocked. While there were unquestionably numerous copyright violations, I think it's quite likely that you were unaware of the extent to which copyright still applies when it relates to editor reviews published on Amazon, or collections of facts, etc, or how seriously Wikipedia has to take copyright. I see that you did a lot of good work for Wikipedia, and I'm sure your intention was to help the encyclopaedia.

I note that your unblock request was turned down, but I don't think that has to mean that your block is permanent. It was turned down while we were still going through the articles you had created, and checking them for copyvios. I don't think this usually happens, but my feeling is that you've just been forgotten. The thread on the admin noticeboard that dealt with this issue has been archived. I would suggest, if you want to be unblocked, that you remove the link to m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia, which at the moment is part of your unblock request, and is unlikely to help your case. This was not a case of copyright paranoia: there were clear violations. If you do that, and then simply state that you'll be very careful in future not to life content from books or websites when contributing to Wikipedia articles, I promise I'll try to keep your request "alive", by mentioning it to administrators, and asking for another review. I'm sure some admins are still watching your page anyway. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and I really think it's unlikely that there wouldn't be someone who'd be prepared to unblock you. ElinorD (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, support and comments I have received here and by email from a number of users. I am considering all aspects of the situation. It is now a week since my unblock request. Thank you, ElinorD (talk) for your thoughtful message. I am giving your suggestions and advice full consideration and will reply to you on this page, as it is the only page which I am currently able to access. Orbicle 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Orbicle, I'd like to express that I, inasmuch as I viewed the conversastion, I don't think anyone thought that you were intentionally harming the encyclopedia. Your early contributions were, however, rather detrimental. May I refer you to Template:2nd chance? I think that sometimes that template is substituted on editor's talk page, but I figured I'd just link it. If you have the time, consider finding an article, improving it and posting it to your talk page! Best, Iamunknown 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 26, 2007

In response to all the above regarding the block:

Wikipedia:Blocking policy states that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure. Block duration varies by situation, and a block may be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior."

Hoping the above to be true, I would like to make the following statements and trust that a satisfactory solution will be found:

I apologise for breaking the copy violation rules. As I have stated previously, my intention was not to cause damage but to improve the contents of Wikipedia. My assumption was that it was permissible to use valid material from reliable sources within reason. It appears that, partly through inexperience and partly through carelessness, I have infringed on one of the cardinal rules of Wikipedia. For this, I apologise.

I deeply regret the inconvenience caused to all those who found themselves in a position to remedy the damage. It was not intentional on my part to cause all this additional work for others. I would have been more than willing to undertake a great deal of this work myself and make whatever corrections were possible if I was able to access my pages. Unfortunately, from the moment my account was blocked, I have been unable to do so.

If unblocked, I shall do my best to avoid making the same mistakes again and I shall be extremely careful to observe the copyright rules and other rules pertaining to Wikipedia. I cannot give a categorical undertaking that I will not err in future, mainly because I still find the rules and conditions very confusing in many respects but I shall do my best to understand them and respect them.

I will do my best to go over my previous edits and whenever and wherever possible, remove examples of my own previous copy violations when/where found.

Orbicle 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other contributors have written

Fireplace writes:

given Orbicle's longtime contributions and the idea that blocks should be preventative, not punitive, there's general agreement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive13 that we would have confidence in Orbicle if s/he stated clearly that s/he understands the policy, apologizes, and agrees to proceed in accordance with all the rules.

Moreschi writes:

I imagine that most people would be happy to unblock once we get an apology and a promise that, for want of better words, this won't happen again.

Fireplace writes:

I'd be happy to voice a vote of confidence if Orbicle says something showing s/he clearly understand the policy and will proceed in accordance with it (and hopefully apologizes for the need to search through the articles). 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

GuillaumeTell writes:

I feel rather uncomfortable viewing what looks like a public pillorying/witch-hunt/hanging, drawing, quartering... Is there somewhere where we could jointly submit some sort of plea for mercy?

Antandrus writes:

I'm sure you and the others are right. I'd unblock Orbicle myself if she (he?) 1) promises to copyvio no more, 2) helps us find the copy-pastes. She/he has obviously done a lot of good work here. But we also have a very hard policy against copyright infringement, because it is probably the single gravest threat the project faces.

Kleinzach writes:

I hope the intention will not be to humiliate Orbicle by getting him to admit to something he doesn't think he has done. IMO it would be a good idea to unblock him and bring him into the discussion

ElinorD writes:
- Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and I really think it's unlikely that there wouldn't be someone who'd be prepared to unblock you.
  - I'm sure he'd be prepared to promise to follow our copyright policy in future, but I hate to see people forced to grovel, and I think if he made that promise, it should be enough. I suppose it's not actually necessary for him to agree with all the policies in order to be a productive Wikipedian. It should be enough simply to follow them.
    - While there were unquestionably numerous copyright violations, I think it's quite likely that you were unaware of the extent to which copyright still applies when it relates to editor reviews published on Amazon, or collections of facts, etc, or how seriously Wikipedia has to take copyright. I see that you did a lot of good work for Wikipedia, and I'm sure your intention was to help the encyclopaedia. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and I really think it's unlikely that there wouldn't be someone who'd be prepared to unblock you.

Orbicle 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking

I'll go to WP:ANI, and ask an administrator to consider unblocking you. ElinorD (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've unblocked you. --Golbez 14:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Welcome back, and I hope everything works out. If you're ever in doubt as to whether something is too closely based on a source, feel free to leave me a note. ElinorD (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to see you have finally been unblocked. Hope you will join us in the Opera Project, we need more good editors! --Kleinzach 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Roman_Spring.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Roman_Spring.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Obraztsova_Carmen.jpeg

I have tagged Image:Obraztsova_Carmen.jpeg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Bigr Tex 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eobook.jpg

I have tagged Image:Eobook.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Bigr Tex 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]