User talk:Fizencor

November 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. m.o.p 16:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

This account is NOT a sockpuppet! What is going on?? My previous account was blocked as a group account and I was told to open a new account for myself individually, so I did. What is the problem?? Fizencor (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since you were soft-blocked at the old name, and since the block message said creating a new account was a valid option—and since I have seen no evidence of any edits so problematic to warrant an outright block—I have granted your request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thank you. All I am trying to do is add a photo, which I own, and which has been deleted twice without contacting me or telling me why. I am going to try with a different photo since that one seems to be tagged for deletion for whatever reason.Fizencor (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted as a copyright violation, so I'm guessing that you failed to demonstrate that you are the owner of the image. I can't see the deleted image at Commons, so I can't be more specific than that.

If you're going to upload the image again, be sure that you can document that you are the owner of the image and that you have released it under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thanks. I saw the copyright violation thing when I looked into it, but no one even asked me about documentation or anything like that, so I'm not sure what I am supposed to do differently. The image had originally been uploaded by a third party and it was suggested to them that the owner upload it directly, so I had done that. I hope that a different photo will avoid the problem but I don't know. I wish things were more transparent for "amateur" users. Fizencor (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that there are two websites involved, so any messages would have shown up at Wikimedia Commons, not necessarily here. And yes, the image rules are complicated, but licensing is a complicated issue, so we don't have a good, easy fix for it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]