User talk:Fooliard

Non-free rationale for File:MonsterHighSkull.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MonsterHighSkull.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've editted/modified the rationale(s) associated with that image. Anything I'm missing? Notify me quickly!! Fooliard (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. WP:NFCC on minimal number of non-free items.  This logo is substantially similar to the logo already in the infobox.  WP:NFCC on contextual significance.  A logo is generally allowed to be used in the main infobox of an article for visual identification.  The same does not hold for use in sections.   The logo is not the subject of significant sourced commentary, so its use in a section of a larger article does not meet contextual significance.  I really do not see any way that this non-free image could be made to meet the non-free content criteria, and will need to be deleted.  I suggest that you tag it yourself for deletion by applying the tag db-author to the file.  Copyright and non-free content rules on Wikipedia can be very confusing.  If you have questions or need help with this, Media Copyright Questions is a good place to get assistance.  For more general assistance on editing, you can ask questions at the Teahouse.  Regards, Whpq (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

 * and @WP Admins, please I asked for clarification of a WP policy, not to violate it as per the claiming, as I'm a newbie (though I've made more than 100 edits). Is it that I can't add images to WP or I can't edit at all? Check my changes and notify me if I've done anything contrary to the WP rules. Please unblock me — I haven't disrupted WP as the command suggest, else I should have been editting elsewhere by now. I'm not using multiple account(s) as it is claimed! It's been almost a week since this surprise block got invoked on my account. What's going on? If I can't edit anymore because of this block and can't invoke another per WP:BE, please at least consider letting me be! Fooliard (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not a newbie. You are a sockpuppet account of, violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I know I editted from the same IP address as — because of non-existent e-mails attached to registering WP accounts nowadays, your checkuser evidence proves so. Please note you first blocked me over a calm image dispute/confusion, not the network mechanism I'm editing from! I now know per checkuser rules, users like me are subjected to something like this — honestly this is unfair. By the way, my unblock request — I'm yet to receive an answer. Does this mean per just logging in to my account from an IP adress previously used by  (which was coincidentally blocked by you) or any sockpuppet master, I can't edit WP again?! Maybe I have to use just one device/network solely for my account to as not to have this setback again. 
 * You are mistaken, I did not block, though perhaps you are talking only about the IP address. If so, I cannot comment on that (no offence, I just have to uphold privacy concerns). Note also there's more than just the IP address involved in your block. You've engaged in logged-out block evasion. Additionally, you have edited the same subject area in the same manner as that user, both via this account and via your logged-out editing. You've also previously claimed (while signed out) to somehow know where BarbieFilmLover is located, something that should not be possible for you to know unless you are violating WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I mistook you for something I'm not related to at all. For checkuser reasons, it can't/won't be proven that I'm not — or being one of its sockpuppets — but I will keep upholding my stance of not at all being connected to all this. I only registered to update articles based on references found online, not to evade any block, disrupt or tarnish WP. If I can't prove to you or WP that I'm not  or genuine, nothing will! For that "same subject areas" you cited, I have countless websites and sources which could/should/would have more than enough proof of whatever I put there. It may be of the same manner, but it means absolutely nothing when citing the connections with those ones. It is for just creating and editting notable articles on WP and adding images if any — that is all. My edit conduct before this block is definitely not connected to those edits by the sockpuppets of  in any way, shape or form. I logged into my account with that IP address just once — although I understand if this would mean the end of the line for me on WP. Fooliard (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, WP CheckUsers, I may not/could not be proven against one of your colleagues labelling me as a sockpuppet of an acount which was proven to have abused multiple accounts, but please consider my stance. If I was, I wouldn't be defending myself like I am right now. If my editing disrupts this project like the claims suggesgt, I would be editting somewhere else by now. This block is totally unfair. Fooliard (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mattel Television.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Mattel Television.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)