User talk:AndCx
March 2015[edit]
AndCx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize first of all if some pages were found to be a violation of the copyright of some web sites. The reason why I should not be locked is this: I work in the music business, the articles I wrote were created in collaboration with artist management, who provided me all the resources reliable and true, personal data, and complete biographies. Regarding the pages for which I was told that they were for promotional purposes, copyright infringement, I would like to specify which are the management of the artists copyright owners of the biographies in the sites to which I made reference, the pages were in the process of work , but users will not have given me the possibility to change, I tried to explain the reasons why I did not want these pages were eliminated, but unfortunately the users, they decided to monitor my account and my pages. I agree, we need to create an encyclopedia, not to create and write unnecessary things. But I have also written articles on artists who are now famous in the music business, every day items that have the support of many users that every day fit new things, to whom goes my thanks. I hope not to be blocked indefinitely, because as has happened in the past, the articles I write about the artists I know are first of all articles covering artists that are already mentioned in some pages of wikipedia, and then relate to artists who perhaps are not very popular today but are the artists who will be tomorrow in a superstar. I only write articles about people for whom I know their situations, and why they are mentioned in some pages of artists already popular. In my articles there are always reliable and personal references, then everything that is written is true. I know that the problem is in the last few pages that there was a violation of copyright, but I can assure you that they are the artist management owners of this information, and with whom we would have had more time we would have changed, and correct all kind of violation, we'd just need time, it's hard to do it all in one day and in a few hours, especially when there are users who want to quickly delete the page. I thank these users, because only thanks to them I realized how Wikipedia and guidelines, and especially the Wikipedia policy. I always explained why the pages should not be eliminated. I hope not to be locked, I still have the opportunity to write articles that can be productive and important for the future. I will try to create an encyclopedia as possible by the help of users. But please do not block my account and do not take away the freedom of expression. thank you
Decline reason:
the articles I wrote were created in collaboration with artist management
So you were violating our Terms of Use? Regardless, you've had more than a year to realize that an official biography is not an encyclopedia article and I'm not confident your unblock reason demonstrates that you understand what an encyclopedia is not.
and with whom we would have had more time we would have changed, and correct all kind of violation, we'd just need time, it's hard to do it all in one day and in a few hours
You should have anticipated these violations and not made them in the first place. You've had plenty of warnings. MER-C 10:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
AndCx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not violated that particular end use to which you have referred. No payment, no fraud, no. No one was paid for it. I created pages for free, and based on the resources that they have given to me, on the web, which are part of these, that you have reported may be copyrighted. I put these sites in the references, and I wrote the biographies basandemo on these sites, especially on MTV. But no payment we were never made for this, so there is no fraud or any other terms of use. I agree that I have not followed the guidelines on creating biographies set from wikipedia. I tried in every way to write a full biography, but at the time there were not many resources on the web to be inserted. But there has been no violation of the terms of use and I can confirm this. I again have my apologies, and thank you for these reports. But I can assure you that there was no violation, no action legal or illegal, in every biography I always put all the references, as they were the only resources available. But there has been no violation, and I want to clarify. The same biographies, are also copied on other websites. But I ask you once again to unlock my account.
Decline reason:
Very obviously you do not understand. No matter who gives you stuff to post, the rules on copyright apply. Copyright material must not be brought into Wikipedia. An exception is if the OWNER of the copyright contacts us to release copyright to us - but in the case of material from an artiste's website that is pointless (own sites are there for the purpose of promotion and promotion is not allowed here). Posting copyright material here is a legal violation - of both our terms of service and of the rights of the owner of the copyright. It doesn't matter to us that the material has been posted in several places. That is the problem of those sites and the owners of the copyright. You say, "at the time there were not many resources on the web to be inserted" - that indicates to me that the subject was not notable. And apart from this, I am unable to believe that you have gone to all this trouble and effort for free. Why did they ask you to do this work? And, when things seemed to be going wrong, did you just keep on? You have had a previous short block for copyright violation. You just carried on. I an quite sure that you are here only for promotion, and not to 'build the encyclopaedia'. Peridon (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
AndCx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Nothing was made for promotional purpose, and as i told you before, who gave me this website as references are the copyright owner.And i repeat, when i did the pages, there were no issue about that, and i did this page in January 2014. Other pages, on wikipedia, got material copied by other site, and i can list a lot. But there were no intention to do page for promotional scoop, but just insert this artists in wikipedia for their contribution to music industry as indipendent artist. This is why i made the page, and when i re-open this page i used the page deleted because from them i could fix add everything, but no one gave me the time. So sorry if i didn't so quickly. But i understand and i'm agree with your reason and thank you for that. But please don't continue to block my account, i'm asking you sorry, and i can promise that i won't open any page like that, but i need to be unlocked for the page that i created and that are going well
Decline reason:
We're not getting anywhere, so I'm revoking talk page access. You can make another request by email. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
- Understandably, the administrators who have been evaluating your unblock requests are focusing on the promotional aspects of your contributions, as well as the copyright violations. I'd like to add other, albeit related, reasons for my blocking you. You have a very long list of articles you created that have been speedy deleted. Worse, the last article you worked on you recreated almost immediately after it was deleted per WP:AFD. That, in and of itself, is inherently disruptive and evinces a clear intent to thumb your nose at our policies. Some of your edit summaries confirm that (a) you are not doing this alone and (b) are determined to ramrod your contributions into Wikipedia. Some examples: "contest your vandalism and rude!"; "MTV copied that, we did this page in 2013, and a user deleted it for some reason, PLEASE GIVE US TIME AND WILL FIX IT!!"; and "OK delete the page but this rappresent how Wiki's user a stupid, and join Wiki just for do this vandalism attack to other user. This is suck!" Finally, I should warn you that if you persist in making similar unblock requests, that's a basis for revoking your access to this Talk page. The one above is your third.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- The reason of what you mention up it was because, everytime i contested speedy deletion, no one gave me answers regard that, and for what they did that. There were users that start to control my page and everything that i did, and they have always made against me for not giving me the chance to explain the reason ask them reason of their actions. This made me really angry, and i understand that this is really amiss, and not appropriately for Wikipedia. But i won't be rude, and been rude wasn't my intentions. About the Speedy Deletion, and for what immediatly after i restore page, is because i always tried unfair that users deleted my page without reason, when i explained why page shouldn't be removed, but this never worked. I'm sorry for that
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MoxiieScandiRaRaartwork.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:MoxiieScandiRaRaartwork.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)