Welcome!
Hello, Fly05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like File:Shava.jpg, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BanRay 10:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of File:Shava.jpg
edit
A tag has been placed on File:Shava.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Shava.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BanRay 10:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
edit
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BanRay 22:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and that pic was a blatant copyright infringement, and there are plenty of reasons (which I'm not gonna list here), why we don't accept copyvios. Consider yourself warned ;) BanRay 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And one last thing, I did not ruin any pictures, so either get yourself a proper browser or try F5. BanRay 22:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:BanRay. --Say Headcheese!-hexaChord2 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I strongly suggest that you don't make good on your threat to deal with your disagreement by creating sockpuppet accounts. Incivility is a problem you can correct, sockpuppeting generally results in all of your accounts, past and future, being indefinitely blocked from editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright
editGoing from your last post, you evidently do not understand the concept of Public Domain. The pic is obviously copyrighted, like almost any other picture available on the internet (unless stated otherwise). So let's just finish the conversation here for now. BanRay 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright is owned by the photographer who took a picture, regardless of whether it was taken for professional or personal use. The only pictures that are in the public domain have been released by the photographer into the public domain (and Wikipedia would need a clear statement of that fact that's verifiably from the photographer), or pictures that are so old that the copyright has expired. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fly05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your unwavering idealism is truly touching... not. I was blocked for no good reason. This is a matter of principle, as we are all entitled to equal freedoms, something I'm sure none of you self absorbed control freaks know about. First, earlier today BanRay took down a picture which I did NOT put up on a Russian-language wiki and which was in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Contacting him about it he "warned" me for abuse which I did not commit, then upon questioning him about it he got his friends to warn me as well. This is all with minimal interaction on his part. On my last post begging him to release the information of the ORIGINAL location of the "illegal" picture which he took down, FisherQueen decided to block me. Now I am blocked for 24 hours from uploading anything PREMATURELY based on my "reputation" which prior to BanRay's fascism today, was spot-less. The best part of this is that I was not going to edit anything, only using the upload function as a lazy short-cut to see the date the picture was taken (by someone's Canon or whatever) and to get the original location to TRIPLE CHECK to the legality of using the picture for my own enjoyment. Thank you for your understanding, all you defender's of justice, crusader's for knowledge, and pompous hypocrites. *note* i am not an arsehole and usually don't sound like the one i made myself out to be here. but, well i'm not the one who's lost any sense of purpose or direction after the acquisition of power - however small that may be. you should look yourselves in the mirror (figuratively speaking of course)
Decline reason:
We don't grant abusive unblock requests. — Smashvilletalk 23:43, 21 December 2008 (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.
Fly05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You don't grant abusive unblock requests, but you do grant abusive blocks. Okay sounds fair enough --Fly05 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm not seeing any indication that you understand or intend to rectify the reason for your block, so it would seem unwise to unblock. Kuru talk 01:19, 22 December 2008 (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.
Fly05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Seeing as how there was no reason for my block in the first place I don't see any reason to be rectifying it. As for the picture, I understood wiki's overcautious approach on photographs from the first time i came here, it was impossible to miss the giant explanations of why a certain picture was allowed. unlike most everywhere else on the internet, instead of using the option of simply taking something down if the rightful owner complains, here you need express written consent. often a dam hard thing to get. fine. but i don't understand why people cannot be more democratic. what will it hurt if you discuss a questionable photo, and it hangs for a few more hours, rather than taking it down and leaving absolutely no trace (or chance for the conflict to be resolved)
Decline reason:
You repeatedly, after being warned, continued to use abusive, confrontational, and insulting language, and since you refuse to understand why such behavior is not allowed in any context (never mind any Wikipedia rules, I'm talking like ever, in life, should you behave this way) I am declining this request. I am also going to be protecting this page, as three unblock requests a day is quite enough. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 22 December 2008 (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.
- I did not block you for the disagreement you were having. I blocked you for your incivility in your comments on his talk page. Good manners are very important at Wikipedia, because we have to work together with people we disagree with or the project doesn't work.. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You say that there was 'no reason' for your block; I'm sorry if I didn't explain the reason clearly enough. I blocked you for incivility; your comments here, here, and here, since you ignored warnings to talk more politely. At Wikipedia, we often meet people with whom we disagree, but it's essential that we deal with those disagreements politely. Rudeness disrupts the process of working together to create the encyclopedia; when we talk rudely, it's harder to come to consensus about anything. I haven't even looked at the photograph you were disagreeing about; I simply noticed your insults on his talk page when I was patrolling recent changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Remarkable. If you consider that abuse, I'd like to live in your utopia. If I had already received a warning for a first time offense, FROM THE USER I WAS TALKING TO, what use was giving me a 2nd and then 3rd warning (resulting in a block) when all i demanded was an explanation on what i had done wrong in the first place (it was well obvious I was a complete noob as well). there is only one reason to be a moderator when all you do is edit pages all day, and that is to abuse power. enjoy your empire of mud. try not to let it go to your head --Fly05 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- You called him a Nazi, a Fascist and crazy. Do you seriously not see the problem with this? --Smashvilletalk 02:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
you tarnished my name. perhaps you need a ban too? #1) i did not call him a Nazi with capital letters, nor a Fascist (where'd you find that ?_?), i simply used it as a term for his actions, which i've been observing long before this incident. (You've heard of nazi parking attendants have you not? This refers to abuse of power). moreover i used it in the form as a question. If I ask "Is Smashville a moron?" or whatever when i'm flabbergasted why someone did something, does that make it an attack? As we share interests i often see BanRay changing things to his liking even if it serves absolutely no benefit to the rest of us (aka "the project"). he often has discussions with friends as they team up against "disruptive editing" (someone's point of view other than their own). But of course you know nothing of this. #2) I already got it. I was a "noob" (first time ever using wiki for other than expanding knowledge or updating a stat). That is what I got my first warning for. Anyway I don't know why I'm even wasting my time typing this. I'm going outside, like I said enjoy your empire of mud and your hypocritical ethics. I believe in free thought, this rat race isn't for me
oh and Jayron32, I made those requests because it seemed the easiest way to respond to those people. But thanks for taking the time to review and protect the page. Girls really dig that. Seriously, I'm sorry to break it to you but you're not getting laid. Tonight or ever. Too bad! But hey you like to feel big and if that works for you on here than so be it. dopamine eh. word..... HOW many more will enter the conversation!? --Fly05 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)