User talk:Frany90

June 2017

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Salhawas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz.media, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Buzz.media! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If 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.

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If 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.

File:Anita Yadav mla rewari.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anita Yadav mla rewari.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Anita Yadav 2009 election.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anita Yadav 2009 election.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samrat Yadav 1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samrat Yadav 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Samrat Yadav Euro.jpg

The file File:Samrat Yadav Euro.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Samrat Yadav Netherlands.jpg

The file File:Samrat Yadav Netherlands.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samrat Yadav Netherlands.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samrat Yadav Netherlands.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samrat Yadav Euro.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samrat Yadav Euro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

—SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for multiple copyvio image uploads with false tags.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 07:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Anita Yadav mla ateli.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Anita Yadav mla ateli.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 13 October }}

Unblock request

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).

Frany90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello sir! Hope you'r doing good. It just came to my notice that i'v been blocked from editing on Wikipedia for uploadimg images. Images i have been uploading are totally my own work and they concern to famous personalities in India. Please help me further process as am not too familiar with wikipedia do's and donts. How can i be unblocked now? Frany90 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, as the user has not returned to the discussion to respond to questions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 27 October 2017 (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.

Spiff 06:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check, are you saying you actually took the original photographs yourself with a camera? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir. These picture have been taken by me. The concerned pictures belong to my relative whose is a social figure in India. I take care of media stuff concerning the figure. Thankyou. I Hereby request you tell the process of unblocking. Thankyou Sir. Have a good day. Frany90 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's confusing me a little - how can they be taken by you but belong to your relative? Just to be fully clear, do you mean you took the photographs and own the copyright, but your relative has possession of the prints and/or negatives? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you be a lot less confused if you A) Didn't spend all of your Wikipedia "contributions" on harassing other editors and B) Assumed good faith per Wikipedia policy? And why don't WIKIPEDIA editors who are so obsessed with Wikipedia policies for copyrights have some sort of template directing the image uploader to WIKIMEDIA where real "experts" on copyrights, intellectual property etc are editing and administrating the wiki? Another good question is how an image IS "OK" to upload to Wikipedia long enough for an "editor" to conduct OWN RESEARCH on its "copyright info" and/or EXIF data but then then is NOT "OK" after they've "inspected" or otherwise analyzed and/or appraised it? Once its UPLOADED TO WIKIPEDIA for their "approval" per their OWN RESEARCH and alleged "expertise" in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, it can't be "deleted" no matter WHAT the red text says after they've "successfully" gotten rid of that image they apparently violated copyright law and Wikipedia policy by "accepting" it for "inspection". Nor does any amount of "deleting" of other smoking gun evidence of their own various ethical and/or legal indiscretions make it magically go away. One would think that at some point they'd realize that everything they "create" on Wikipedia ceases to be THEIR "intellectual property" as soon as they publish it online and a "resume'" of censorship, prior restraint, denial of basic human rights, etc. they publish freely and voluntarily might eventually work against them instead of for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir. There's some confusion with the interpretation: When i said "concerned picture belongs to my relative" - i meant the person in the picture is a family member. I took the pictures myself from my camera and own all the copyrights. And also the social figure has no objections being clicked and the pictures being uploaded on internet. Thanks :) Frany90 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand, thanks - I'm a bit busy right now but I'll come back to this a bit later today and see what I can do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Frany90. I've had to delete newspaper as well as Twitter and Facebook uploads here. Stuff gets deleted there, it gets uploaded here, stuff gets deleted here, it gets uploaded there. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Do you have any thoughts on the above explanation that Frany90 is a family member and the actual photographer (and, presumably, is also the source of the Facebook etc copies)? I ask because you are presumably familiar with those other web copies, and I haven't seen them. If this explanation is true, then I guess the photos would still need a proper (OTRS, presumably) release as they have previously been published elsewhere. The uploading of newspaper material is also an issue, but your thoughts on these photos would be welcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I have no thoughts on the family member status, but I don't believe the "I took the photographs" message one bit. See this one which is still on here, that's obviously something from an nic.in website (govt website) as they have the habit of posting images with captions within the image file. None of the uploads have any exif data, rather they are all "stripped". I'd expect some exif data if even one of them was an own upload. Then there's the grabs from random twitter and Facebook feeds (including obvious selfies of someone!), one image was inside the legislative assembly (which would require press credentials), none of this is remotely plausible, there's the promo activity around bios, copyvio images, and the obvious caste related editing issues that Sitush might be able to elaborate on as I did not consider that while blocking. —SpacemanSpiff 09:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they're old photos then there's a fair chance they're film photos and scanned, and I wouldn't then expect to see exif data (I have thousands of scanned film photos myself, with no exif). But the rest of what you say means I clearly can't consider unblocking, and I'll leave it for someone else to review. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the copyright owner on all those thousands of scanned film photos? And does scanning NOT create EXIF data when the "digitized" but NEW "image" is created? Or does it just create EXIF data you aren't aware of? Or do you "strip" the EXIF data from the images? Or do you just think you do? How many of those images have you uploaded to Wikipedia or other internet websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scanning process did not create EXIF data, and if I check them now using a photo editor I can see there is no EXIF. The other questions are irrelevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]