User talk:Cpzphantom

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

American Dragon: Jake Long

Please refrain from adding fan site links and fan forums. These are not allowed due to the guidelines of WP:EL. TrackFan 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding these links. They are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please take the time to read WP:EL. TrackFan 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are considered as vandalism. Vandalism is looked down upon here. TrackFan 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Copa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Copa.jpg. 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. 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Tocumen english.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tocumen english.JPG. 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. 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Airlines Destinations

There shouldn't be an article posted within an aritcle! There should be a link to the subarticle, and if necessary a brief paragraph, but there is no need for the whole list of destinations to be in the articles itself! 201.240.89.134 04:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-uploading images

Please don't re-upload those airline images. You need to prove that they were either released under a free license such as the GFDL, or that they constitute Fair use in the article. Simply being used for publicity purposes by the company website is not enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Images

Please do not remove every single image but one on the page. Images are there for a reason, and I did revert your edits. Please do NOT do it again.--Golich17 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and image copyright violations

Cpzphantom, you have evidently tried to evade my warning about images, by uploading the same images again (Image:Cpaco..jpg, Image:Webair.gif, Image:Englishlogway.JPG) under a sockpuppet account Chazzprincetone (talk · contribs). This is unacceptable. I told you these images can't be used, and why. I'm now blocking both you and the sock indefinitely. This doesn't mean you won't be allowed to edit ever again; I'm just not setting a fixed expiry date. You can be unblocked any time as soon as you give evidence that you've read and understood and accepted our image policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Policies

I already read the image policy, and I want to be unblocked, the images that were posted were in reality in a public domain and as long as I understand, this ones are allowed, it's confirmed that images are for free use under any part of the web, but it isn't cleared yet if the license is the public domain one or the GFDL, unblock me to give the links and see it for yourself.

Future Perfect Image copyright exam

Okay. I'm afraid I concur with Yamla; what you write shows you still misunderstand our copyright policies severely, so, much as I appreciate your enthusiasm to contribute here, I'm afraid it won't be safe to let you loose on the project. You can get yourself unblocked if you demonstrate you've made progress with the policies, by passing the following simple little exam.

Here's a list of links to 20 random images uploaded by other users on Wikipedia. Please check these images, and indicate whether you think each of them is okay in copyright terms (correctly used, correctly tagged, correctly sourced, etc.) When giving your judgment, make sure you refer to the relevant portions of the image policies, and especially make sure you understand the difference between "free images", "public domain" images, and "fair use" images. So, here goes. Take as much time as you want. Then just write one or two sentences on each image. If your answers are reasonable, you'll be awarded the "Future Perfect Certified Image Uploader Award" and be unblocked. Good luck, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random images to check, uploaded on day 20061214

Future Perfect Image copyright exam answer

Image 1: contains a low res picture, and is under fair use licenses which allow low res images on wikipedia legaly, the image has all of it's complements.

missing rationale, no check of plausible fair use (but probably okay)

Image 2: contains a hi-res image, however, the uploader owns the image and all of it's rights are established under it's terms and the GNU ones as well.

no comment on derivative status, otherwise okay

Image 3: contains a hi-res image, however, the uploader owns the image and all of it's rights are established under it's terms and the GNU ones as well, also, the uploader allows it's release in public domain, except if it is prohibited by the law.

obvious (probably even ineligible for copyright; lack of creative component)

Image 4: It does not have any tags and is in hi-res, possibly indicating the user never selected a license, this image has, however, been used on several articles, thought is unclear if the image may be deleted or not, it's poorly informed and should be deleted.

correct, this one is problematic because it's unsourced

Image 5: Hi-res image under a book cover fair use tag, however, the image tag says low res images only and the picture is hi res so the tag should be changed or remove the image.

arguably correct in marking the hi-res problem

Image 6:hi res image with low ilumination (web-resolution), it is under screenshots tag so it qualifies as fair as long as the user don't uploads several images. should be leaved until user infinges the screenshot tags laws.

missing rationale, used for mere decoration

Image 7: Hi res screenshot of an audio cover, it infringe the law cause it isn't low res like the tag specifies it must be to be fair use. 7 - more problematic than the resolution is the missing rationale

Image 8: the image is hi-res, however, it can be used to any action the user wants under the terms of Gnu free documentation license tag.

no source, probably copyrighted. You didn't comment on the question of whether it's plausible the uploader is really the creator. This looks like a painting by somebody else, so it would be a copyvio.

Image 9: HI RES image, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law, The image should be leaved.

Yep, no problem.

Image 10: hi res image, the author release the image in this public domain under the terms of the GNU and creative commons license any other use not listed is copyright infringement.

No problem.

Image 11: hi res image, the author release the image in this public domain under the terms of the GNU and creative commons license any other use not listed is copyright infringement.

No problem.

Image 12: Hi res screenshot of an audio cover, it infringe the law cause it isn't low res like the tag specifies it must be to be fair use.

not really particularly high-res. But missing rationale.

Image 13: hi res image, it is under screenshots tag so it qualifies as fair as long as the user don't uploads several images, however, the screenshot is in hi-res, no web-res which infringes the terms. should be deleted.

More important is missing rationale

Image 14: Hi-res image, which can be used to any purpose according to GNU free documentation license, should be leaved.

same problem as number 8. Probably bad.

Image 15: This image is hi-res, but the user owns the image and can be used under all it's terms, except if They're prohibited by the law, should be leaved.

no problem, plausibly self-made

Image 16: hi res image, the author release the image in this public domain under the terms of the GNU and creative commons license any other use not listed is copyright infringement.

no problem

Image 17: web-res screenshot of an audio cover, it infringe the law cause it isn't low res like the tag specifies it must be to be fair use.

it's pretty low-res, actually, so that shouldn't be a problem. And it even has a fair use rationale.

Image 18: This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain, should be leaved.

correct, PD-USGov

Image 19:web-res screenshot of an audio cover, it infringe the law cause it isn't low res like the tag specifies it must be to be fair use.

correct to point out high-res problem with this one. But in addition, it doesn't really look like an album cover. And lacks fair-use rationale.

Image 20: Hi-res photo cover, it's owned by the company but the user apparently owns one of their official products, possibly proving ownership of them, should be disscussed.

no rationale, not clear whether it was really released as promotional.

I hope this is the way you wanted the answers to be written, I finished all the questions with all the image terms guidances and normal terms as well as the image tags terms.

Please note that I am reviewing the answers now. Will comment as soon as I am finished. --Yamla 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these responses seem to match up with the images listed above. Cpzphantom, can you please confirm that the following image pairs are the same:

Image 1 and Image:Godwilling.jpg.
Image 5 and Image:Dpmovie.jpg.
Image 10 and Image:Sano 18.jpg.
Image 15 and Image:Peter R Coneway.jpg.
Image 20 and Image:Wretchedspawn-alt.jpg.

Also, please check that the images I am listing here are the images you are commenting on above. --Yamla 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Fut.Perf.

Okay, thanks for taking the trouble of actually doing this "exam". (And thanks to Yamla for helping with the "marking") - I feel evil now for having set this task, it seems to have been quite difficult. As you see above, I'd actually given quite a few answers differently. You concentrated very much on this issue of high-res versus low-res, but there were really quite a few other "hidden" problems. Yeah, I know, this task was really mean in a way.

Anyway, in recognition of your efforts I'm unblocking you, but I'd still recommend that you should remain very cautious with making further image uploads. Unless you are very certain about the legitimacy of an image, and if you have any doubts at all, it might be better to ask an experienced user first before you make an upload.

Best, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I become unblocked?

Sorry, still one of those Wikipedia:Autoblocks around that I overlooked. I lifted it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error

No they weren't, I clicked the first link that says image no 1 and then it took me to a windows and I clicked the button go, then 20 links to the images appeared.

Okay, I'm confused. I am not sure which images you were commenting on. :( Hopefully the other admin can help out a bit here. --Yamla 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the button "Go" on the page top and then, it loaded 20 images.

Random image 1

Oh, okay. I'll review when I get some time. --Yamla 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I hate to say it, Cpz, but the three new images you uploaded since your first block were all three again bad:

This means that you evidently still haven't understood some crucial elements of our image policies. So, I have no other option than to block you again. This is again a (formally) indefinite block, which can be lifted as soon as you meet either of two conditions: Either:

promise solemnly that in future you will refrain from uploading any further images without prior consultation with an admin in each case; or
pass another "copyright exam", by explaining here on your talk page what exactly was wrong about the three images above. But I'll want a much more precise and correct answer than the last time.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I labeled all images with their corresponding tag, colocated info and everything that I read, but I could missed something when reading the policy. Anyways, I'll explain you everything I expected to do.

Image 1: image 1 was a web screenshot from an official website, I tagged it under the web pages screenshots tag, I gave info, a brief description and the source, the resolution could be too high to be web resolution, I didn't distingished this one too well. the res could be the fault.

Image 2: image 2 was on a website which aproves use of GFDL tags, which I used to label the image, don't exactly know wheres the fault, if someone know about it, can then tell me where's the fault?

Image 3: this image was licensed under GFDL, I don't remember the tag too well, I could have been misunderstood that tag with another one, it was hi-res, if there's a problem then inform me.

I shall give a re-read to the terms and see if I understood anything.

Image 1: A screenshot of a web page means the whole web page. You can't just take an element from the web page and use it under that license. Anyway, you weren't using it under those terms, you were using it under the terms of the GFDL. You provide no reason to believe that this company licenses their logo under the GFDL and I know of no such company which has done so.

Image 2: You provide no reason to believe this website licenses their content under the GFDL. The website itself does not indicate this and it would be absolutely stunning for them to do so.

Image 3: Once again, please read the license. It specifically states, "This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only." You are claiming this license for an image found on a website which the license text clearly indicates is not appropriate. --Yamla 18:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, could you please correct the errors. I think I misunderstood the images, since I uploaded them when I was ill.

Image 1 was suppossed to be a screenshot, but since I colocated GFDL instead and know that internet screenshots are suppossed to be full web page ones can you please change it to a fair use, I said that the images could be used freely for only certain purposes that aren't commercial, is there a right tag to these kind of uses, could you please give me the name.

Image 2 and 3: don't know exactly if GFDL or fair use but they said, for non- commercial use only if there's a tag for non-commercial uses only.

Number 1 could conceivably be used under {{Commercial logo}} (fair use). "Non-commercial use only" is generally forbidden - but even so, the websites didn't even give a non-commercial permission anyway. Numbers 2 and 3 are definitely not GFDL, and they would be "fair use" only if, well, they were Fair use. Which they aren't, and that's something to do with what purpose you were using them for. Besides, even if they were "fair use", they'd be {{replaceable fair use}} and as such also forbidden. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything understood, I shall use logos under the Fair use, commercial logo tag, if that is, be sure to indicate me.

Image 2 and 3, I was using them as references, but I have ones that I tooked by myself on real life ocassions and are fully of my property, but i didn't uploaded them yet, if you want, feel free to delete them now that I'm clear. I also have images from other photographers, they will give me the permission to post them if I ask them if I can do so, this time, I'll put direct links to the permissions granting form.

Self-taken images will be very welcome, you can use {{GFDL-self}} for those. Images by others will be okay if the photographers explicitly agree to license them under the GFDL or an equivalent license. You need to make sure they understand that means anybody can re-use them for any purpose. If they just tell you you can use them "on Wikipedia" or "for non-commercial purposes", that's not enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should upload the images under it's correct tag this time. did the fair use works with images? Cpzphantom 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I should have tagged the images wrong, but is my block permanent?Cpzphantom 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can unblock you if you promise you will not upload any images except self-taken ones (i.e. taken with your own camera in real life), or images where you provide proof that the photographer himself has explicitly licensed them under GFDL. Do not upload any other images under any other type of license ("fair use" or whatever). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, what about logos?

Nope. Just don't go anywhere near "fair use" things. As long as we are not certain you understand them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what if I want to upload a logo like in the AA article Cpzphantom 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Ok. but I'm still feling a bit strange about this. Cpzphantom 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cpzphantom's contributions to the article "Copa Airlines"

I want to comment on Cpzphantom's contributions to the article called "Copa Airlines". This user has continously posted erroneous information that diminishes the quality of the article. In order to clarify the situation, and to prevent this user to continue posting information that is wrong, I would like to contribute the following:

1. The parent company of Copa Airlines and AeroRepublica is Copa Holdings, S.A. not Copa Holdings, Inc. This company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CPA.

2. Copa Airlines flies to 36 destinations in 21 countries (all of the company's press releases reveal this information).

3. Copa Airlines currently DOES NOT fly to Montego Bay, Jamaica.

4. Copa Airlines currently DOES NOT fly to Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

4. Copa Airlines does not have and has never had a codeshare agreement with Iberia. In fact, its codeshare agreement with Continental Airlines does not include European destinations.

5. Copa Airlines does not have Boeing 737-200's in its fleet since 2005, the year when the last of these aircraft was sold. It does not operate 4 of these aircraft as cargo aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schonbrunn (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response to your comments on my edits to Copa Airlines

Cpzphantom, it seems to me that you have not understood that the point of this whole site is to provide information on different topics with the same type of credibility as an encyclopedia. Here are a few comments in italics on what you posted on my user talk. I'm reproducing here what you posted on my user talk with a few comments:

Well I see, however, some of your edits are also wrong as well.

First of all, Copa Airlines is one of American Airlines main enemies so that is true, also, American is in a hard ccompetition with copa airlines, so this facts are all accurate This is an opinion, not a fact. What do you mean by hard competition? Fleet size? Destinations? Passengers?

also, codeshare flights are counted as destinations so in total, they are 38 destinations. There you go again. Please, check Copa's press releases and you will find that they do not include codeshare flights as destinations. Codeshare flights to Newark and Houston are operated by Continental with Continental's aircraft.

Copa also offers red eye flights since I flew to JFK departing in 10:30 to 12:45 so those flights are real indeed. Technically, Red-Eye flights operate from 9:30 PM to 5:00 AM, local time. Copa Airlines flights to JFK and LAX depart Panama around 7:30 PM and arrive at their destinations around 12:00-1:00 AM (given the time differences). They do not qualify as red-eye's. If you flew to JFK departing at 10:30 to 12:45, then you did not fly Copa!

And finally, Copa is indeed one of the most advanced airlines around the world so erasing this is incorrect. Once again, opinion

I do not have a problem with you contributing. Just make sure to get your facts straight before posting wrong information. Schonbrunn 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cpzphantom's comments on my edits to Copa Airlines (II)

Cpzphantom,

1. Actually in terms of service, performance and technology This is still an opinion!

2. I think I saw a photo of Copa Airlines aircraft in houston, possibly only on hi demands situations?. Are you familiar with codeshare flights? They allow airlines to operate routes by using another carrier. If Copa operated only on hi demand situations, what would be the point of having the codeshare? Once again, check the company's press releases and count all the other destinations and you will see that they add up to 36.

3. did red eye flights only are valid with the departing hour and the arriving hour and not only one of the two? Red eye flights technically begin at 9:30PM and arrive at their destination around 5:00AM. None of Copa's flights qualifies technically as a red eye.

4. actually, that's from the website itself. What do you think, that marketing people are not going to use that kind of subjective language? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schonbrunn (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please try to be accurate

Copa might have the youngest fleet in the "region" but it doesn't necessarily make them one of the most advanced airlines around the world.

Having the same (or even better if you like) service, performance & technology than American Airlines doesn't make it a rival or "enemy". My contributions included Grupo Taca and Avianca as rivals because they serve basically the same market and have contiguous hubs.(San Jose-Costa Rica / Panama-Panama / Bogota-Colombia) and actually are considered as direct rivals by the company.

Copa's aircrafts never fly to Houston, not even in high demand situations, that flight is just a codeshare and it's uniquely operated by Continental, Copa has no permission to operate it.

About destinantions: Here's the summary attached to every Copa Holdings press release: Copa Holdings, through its Copa Airlines and AeroRepublica operating subsidiaries, is a leading Latin American provider of passenger and cargo service. Copa Airlines currently offers approximately 110 daily scheduled flights to 36 destinations in 21 countries in North, Central and South America and the Caribbean. In addition, Copa Airlines provides passengers with access to flights to more than 120 other international destinations through codeshare agreements with Continental Airlines and other airlines. AeroRepublica, the second-largest domestic carrier in Colombia, provides service to 12 cities in Colombia as well as international connectivity with Copa Airlines' Hub of the Americas through daily flights from Bogota, Cali and Medellin.

So, Codeshares are not included as destinations.

Please try to post accurate contributions. Thanks.

--Metalclaus 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again, for good now

Wow. You did it again. I should have watched you more closely after the last unblock. But I didn't expect you'd break your promises that quickly.

Image:Copawebmap2D.JPG, claimed to be own work, but obviously taken from same source as earlier versions of the same picture.
Image:031017g.jpg, claimed to be own work, copyvio from: [1]
Image:Copacentenario.JPG, claimed to be own work, almost certainly also a copyvio (taken from a mid-air perspective a normal person could never take a photo from)
Image:Copasnow.JPG: No source found, but probably similar case as the ones above
Image:Copaairshots3.JPG: Uploaded as fair use, after explicit promise not to mess with any fair-use images again ([2]).

That's it. You broke your unblocking conditions, for the second time; you again lied about copyright tags, you committed yet more copyright violations. I'm blocking you indefinitely as a serial copyright offender, and no conditional unblock offer this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I cannot see the Copyvio of the image, sure the link is OK? Cpzphantom 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the hypocrisy. You know better than myself where you got those images from. Well, I corrected that link for you. You stole the image from the boeing website. You will remain blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link only directs me to the image but I already found the copyvio, so all the problem was of that image?

Of the five images above, the three first are proven copyvios, the fourth is an almost certain copyvio. That's the problem. Plus, ever since you were blocked you have been block-evading through anon IPs, making unconstructive POV edits, edit-warring about them, and you've shown you are a Single-purpose account with an agenda of promoting Copa airlines. Probably you have a conflict of interests, being some sort of employee of Copa. Your edits have been rejected as unhelpful by several editors, but you have stubbornly edit-warred to inject your POV additions. That's enough to keep you blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm from Simairlines.net

Stop posting unconstructive edits

Your username has already been banned, the pages that you edited using anonymous IP's have been blocked, yet you continue to post unconstructive edits with no value in similar sites (such as the Copa Holdings, S.A. site). Give up already.--Schonbrunn 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not all are unconstructive, did you even investigated better? Cpzphantom 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares what you have or not investigated. You have already plagued these sited with incorrect information (like adding that there was a codeshare with Iberia when there was never one) and your "facts" do not add value to the site. Plus, you have already been banned and your English is not very good. If you care so much for the information you should stop trying to force your useless edits--Schonbrunn 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

You are the one of the useless edits, see your talk page and the links in copa airlines article discussion, you'll find that your edits are wrong then. Cpzphantom 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected to prevent any further personal attacks. Thanks, you are done here. Note that WP:SOCK prohibits you from using any other accounts or editing the Wikipedia while this account is blocked. --Yamla 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]