User talk:Oct11988duh

Bindi Image
Please do not keep adding your image to the Bindi (decoration) article. First, the image is badly focused. It focuses on the bangles in the foreground, while the woman is almost out of focus in the background. That she is wearing a Bindi is hardly visible from the image. It is quite irrelevant in the article, which already has better images. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is not badly focused.There is nothing wrong with the image you can clearly see the Bindi i would rather see that than random old women thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCt11988duh (talk • contribs).


 * Wikipedia is not a glamour magazine that excludes "old women". The bindi is aptly illustrated by the image of the old woman wearing it, but in your (copyvio??) image, the Bindi is hardly visible. Your image does not really illustrates the subject of the article. Also, the first image (Red Bindi) is a copyvio, and you have uploaded it to commons under a fake license. You yourself admitted it was a magazine scan, but later claimed it to be your own work. Most of the photos from your flickr account are magazine scans .... (Karishma Kapoor, KAreena Kapoor, Dimple etc.). Please do not add copyvio images to Wikipedia articles. --Ragib (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Karishma kapoor are wallpapers for my desktop and the women in red bindi is not copyvio


 * Well, you admitted here that the image was scanned by you from a magazine, didn't you? Then you reuploaded with an "own-work" license. Scanned images from magazines are copyright violations by any count. --Ragib (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do you explain this: Image:Indian Bride.jpg seems to be copied directly from ABC.net.au. I am removing all your edits and any further attempts at copyright violations will result in block of your account. --Ragib (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO UPLOAD A PICTURE SCANNED BY ME! it says in the rules here READ IT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy

Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.

Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.

Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include SCANNING a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer.

For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.

More on here

Format

Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format.

TV and movie screenshots should be in JPEG format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy#Format

Oh and pictures that you delted from sari artical "Raraj ravi verma" artist has been dead for over a 100 years a now and i use his scanned poster for his wikibiography! and then i have a provided every detail of proof that 3 pictures were taken by me! incoloding what type of camera and date lence etc

So you are just abusing me on wiki as a administrator

Oh and more on here

Public domain

or example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. This is not true of the copyright laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy

I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO USE THE PICTURE IN THE ARTICAL THE WOMEN IN RED BINDI

And my flicker account is NOT a magazine scan you are such a hypocrite

Another PROOF

all images published before January 1, 1923 in the United States are now in the public domain, but this does not apply to images that were created prior to 1923 and published in 1923 or later. The year 1923 has special significance and this date will not roll forward before 2019.

Death of Raja Ravi Varma (1848-1906)1906!! i have every right to use that image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hamsa_Damayanti.jpg

AGAIN!!!

Public domain

or example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. This is not true of the copyright laws

IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE!!!! READ IT!

They are not considred


 * I am referring to the "Indian Bride" image, which you claimed to be from your flickr account, and your own work, but apparently, that is a copyrighted image from AFP. (Image:Indian Bride.jpg seems to be copied directly from ABC.net.au). The AFP image available from ABC.net.au is a copyrighted image, and even if you yourself scanned it, it will NOT come under your copyright. This of course does not apply to Mona Lisa which is in public domain, but the Red Bindi image is a clear copyright violation.

i am not talking about the bride picture you dint even read all of it

Do you have proof that red bindi image is copyright? YOU DONT Prove it


 * No, but your actions and fraudulent activities regarding licensing raise suspicion about your uploads. You also earlier admitted the image was a scan from a magazine. Most of your photos (except 2 or 3 do not contain any EXIF data. It is YOUR duty to prove copyright and ownership, and you have plagiarized at least one image from AFP. This doesn't show good faith in your part. --Ragib (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way Image:Hamsa_Damayanti.jpg is not a problem if the artist died in 1906. I am referring to other photos claimed to be taken by you. One of them have been proven to be a copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_Dancer_in_Sari.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_Women_in_Sari.jpg

More proof images were taken by me you can see the orignal one in my flicker i have cropped the second one it has EXIF DATA

Scans of Magazine are OK as it clearly states that it is a public domain images it can be SHARED without copyright laws like the women with red bindi i had to put it my own because i scanned it under Public Domain "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing."


 * WHERE exactly does it say that AFP has released the aforementioned image to the magazine? You even did not acknowledge the magazine scan, rather claimed both in flickr and here that it is your own work. The AFP image was taken by the photographer Narinder Naru, and NOT you. No one but the copyright holder can release it in the public domain, so please do not make false claims about the magazine being in public domain. You really need to be careful about making such false claims. I suggest you read the copyright section I linked above once again, and learn to respect copyrights. --Ragib (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the Dancer in sari and women in sari photos, these are perhaps the only two authentic photos taken by you, and there is no problem using them here. At least these have the EXIF data, unlike the other photo copied directly off the Internet. --Ragib (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you deleat those 2 i took myself can i upload again then?

Welcome
Hi ! welcome to Wikipedia!

Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use  ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. You have a serious misunderstanding of copyright, and please refer to COPYRIGHT. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use New contributors' help page. You can also type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

utcursch | talk 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for repeated copyvio
I have blocked your account for 48 hours for blatant copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you promise not to upload and add more copyvio images, I am willing to unblock you. --Ragib (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i will never upload copyvio images again but what about those 2 i took? cant i upload them?

Your recent edit
Hi, please don't use copyrighted photos in articles such as this one. Before editing it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies so you don't accidentally violate them. I also suggest you take a look at WP:C and WP:ICT for more info. Thanks. Copana2002 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I dint upload any of those pics they were from list of indian americans


 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't trying to say you uploaded the picture, just that in the photo description it lists the website it came from (which makes it clear that it is not public domain as the description states and is almost certainly copyrighted). I know photo copyright issues can be confusing; I still make mistakes editing, but reading guidelines and WP:MOS helps me to figure things out. Thanks. Copana2002 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oct11988duh, please stop adding or uploading any copyvio images. The Golf image you added to the article is a clear copyvio(I've nominated that for deletion). If you continue this, I will block you for longer periods. I had hoped you would be more careful after your last block. --Ragib (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Golf image? what are you talking about >_<

Oh i dint know it was copyvio i found it on list of wikis sorry ill make sure next time its not

Deleting sourced material
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh Valid reason? HELLOW do u know wat pic is up there under "White People" ? Africans and South Indians? that is not "White" <_<

Wiki is not suppose to be a joke seriously

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

.........ARE U SERIOUS? did u even look at that page? WOW good for you coz ur just promoting stupidity on WIKI

wow barvo

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

re: White people
Hi, it looks like those edits are the result of consensus on the article's talk page so you will have to go discuss it there if you have a problem. Almost every group has a different idea who meets the definition of "white". Who you view as white may not be the same as someone from a different culture or country. The pictures in question are just illustrating a particular viewpoint about who "fits" the racial designation of white. Hope this helps you to understand these particular edits better. Copana2002 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)