User talk:Cristinabelmontelabado

November 2009[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Bocci. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Bocci, you will be blocked from editing. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bocci Table series 17-18.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bocci Table series 17-18.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bocci Chandelier series 21.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bocci Chandelier series 21.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bocci Chandelier serie 14.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bocci Chandelier serie 14.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload[edit]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Bocci, you will be blocked from editing. --bonadea contributions talk 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 22:25, 24 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for posting images related to the Bocci wikipedia entry that had copyright issues. I wasn't fully aware of wikipedia policies regarding copyright at the time. My intention now is to bring the text in that entry back to the latest version and if possible upload an image showing Bocci most descriptive image for illustration purposes. This image is in the public domain and the author can be contacted

Decline reason:

No response to query below in three days. -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand now what is considered spamming in wikipedia where I had not realized fully before. I thought the issue was the images going with the article and thus I kept trying to change the images to those with public domain ones. Would it be acceptable if I rewrite the article to be merely informative and strip all the self-promotion?

Decline reason:

As with above. -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2009 (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.

The block wasn't just for copyrighted images (that was a secondary consideration). The main problem is that the thrust of all of your edits to date was to insert text in the Bocci article that qualifies as unambiguous advertising. Multiple editors reverted your edits, and multiple warnings were issued, but you continued to add the text back. Could you please explain why you continued to do this in the face of multiple warnings? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per this message to me from blocking admin

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Proposed deletion of File:Bocci Chandelier.JPG[edit]

The file File:Bocci Chandelier.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious 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.

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) 01:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]