User talk:Biog

File:Shlomo grofman.jpg

A number of problems here

The source url given does not actually link to the image, and I couldn't find it in a brief search of the site. I was therefore unable to verify whether it had a GFDL or PD licence, required for free images on Wikipedia and which incidentally permit commercial use.
Your description in any case makes it clear that the image is protected by copyright, and is the intellectual property owned by faire.
You cannot have a "fair use" rationale for a living person, since by definition it is possible to make a free image and release it as GFDL.

If you believe that the image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the owner leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article talk page.
Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at the article talk page with a link to the web page details.

jimfbleak (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good luck jimfbleak (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biog. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I fail to see which evidence is presented. It looks completely opinion based. I don't know what can possibly change your mind (maybe comparing IP addresses and times?), but I'm just not Wrachel.

Decline reason:

Techincal data was compared by the WP:Checkuser and it confirmed that Wrachel and Thebbob are your sockpuppets. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2018 (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.