User talk:Redcorreces

Possibly unfree File:A montage of Omaha.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A montage of Omaha.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The montage itself was made by me. As for the photos used, these are images of locations, structures, etc. that are for practical purposes public property and should not be restricted from being used for non-profit and educational purposes, such as this website. Furthermore, I certify that these images are not watermarked, nor otherwise marked copyrighted, nor did I crop or edit them in such a way as to conceal such markings. The fact that they are free of such markings and that they are online implies that they are royalty-free and that the so-called owners of the images have a reasonable expectation that their images may be viewed, downloaded and used by anyone. And again, I created this montage and uploaded it to Wikipedia for the non-profit and educational purpose that Wikipedia stands for.Redcorreces (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BY EVEN THINKING OF DELETING THIS IMAGE, YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSE. A copy of this comment will appear on the image entry, as you suggested. Thank you.Redcorreces (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at Possibly unfree files/2012 March 28. For the record, you have not addressed any of the concerns in the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I addressed it sufficiently. Now stop your Gestapo nonsense, OK? Redcorreces (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that I am neither a Nazi nor a Gestapo employee. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then don't act like one and leave our photos alone. You got that? Redcorreces (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See WP:ANI. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning
This is a friendly warning. Referring to other people as Nazis or the Gestapo is a guaranteed way to be blocked from editing. I suggest you redact (strike through) your comments containing these sentiments.

I also suggest that you read up on Wikipedia's copyright policies, as your own opinion on what should or should not be acceptable is not a substitute, and uploading copyright violations is another good way of getting blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is a friendly warning...LEAVE MY PHOTOS ALONE. OK? Thanks! Redcorreces (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Once you upload your photos to Wikipedia, you have agreed to Wikipedia's licensing terms and conditions, you no longer own them and have no control over how they are used or what is done to, or with, them. Also, repeatedly saying people should "get a life" is a serious civility issue and can be construed as a personal attack; continuing to do so could lead to the conclusion that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and result in your being blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there you go. Same applies to anyone who uploads any photo to any website. That reasonable expectation of public use. Respect it, stop harassing me and focus on cleaning up vandalism instead of joining in the group think fun of attacking me. Redcorreces (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not being attacked or harassed. You still give no indication that you are listening to what is trying to be told to you so that you can continue as a valued and productive member of the project. Nobody is obligated to "leave your photos alone", and you have still not struck your "Gestapo" comments; those are utterly inappropriate for a cooperative project and continued insistience that there is nothing wrong with them (which leaving them unstruck is doing) will result in blocking. Continued accusations that people are attacking you and engaging in "groupthink" are personal attacks on your own part and can also lead to blocking. In order to be a produtive and contributive part of the project, you need to demonstrate that you are capable of conducting yourself in a civil and collaborative manner - which, to be completely honest, so far you are spectacularly failing to do. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I was not being attacked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I am, so we are. Again, making accusations about my contribution is not civil, either. I'm just defending my contribution, and I am not being profane about it. Redcorreces (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to specifically refute the claim above: In law, there is no "reasonable expectation" that images uploaded to the Internet can be used by others for any other purposes. The owner of the copyright retains that copyright, even when images are placed online, and no watermark or other indication of ownership needs to be included in the image. You are wholly incorrect in your claim that all non-watermarked images on the Internet are effectively public domain and that you can take them and use them as you please. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked your account indefinitely, as it seems clear that you are unwilling to work with or listen to other editors. This block is of an indefinite length, until such time as you demonstrate an understanding of the copyright-related concerns that have been raised with you and further demonstrate that you are able to communicate in a civil manner; to wit, without assumptions of bad faith, name calling, sarcasm, and/or accusations against others acting in good faith. Any administrator is free to lift this block without discussion with me as long as they are satisfied of the above. Once again, I would strongly recommend you take this as an opportunity to review a number of Wikipedia's core policies, including WP:COPY, WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:CIVIL. You may appeal this block by posting the text below this message. You may also want to review the guide to appealing blocks before doing so. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What a shame for Wikipedia. Redcorreces (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. What a shame it is to lose a user who was basically lying about the public domain status of the images that were in your "montage". --MuZemike 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Images of places are public domain. But it doesn't matter, I guess. What matters is suppressing one's freedom, right? Redcorreces (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Free speech is a page you may wish to revise. — foxj 04:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Images of places are public domain. Images of statues are not. And please read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, images of public places are not public domain either (99% of the time). That's just something Redcorreces made up. --Mosmof (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Freedom of Panorama does not put "places" - copyrightable structures or the copyrightable objects associated with them - in the public domain, it only controls the degree to which the copyright holder may exercise rights. Until this editor understands that, we are in for endless trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Under Freedom of Panorama, photos of public buildings can, for example, usually be taken and donated to Wikipedia by the person who took the photograph. But it is most certainly not the case that all images of public buildings are public domain and that anyone can take any such photos from the Internet and use them on Wikipedia. I think it is unfortunate that the discussion got centered on the image of a statue, as that is not the core problem - that just adds another layer of copyright to the equation. The other images used, regardless of their subject, are still the copyright of the people who took them (unless it can be explicitly shown otherwise). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
'''You have just proven me right about alleging the Nazi- and Gestapo-like treatment of contributors. You have blocked me from a hostile environment. And for that, I thank you.'''
 * Pizza is good.  Snowolf How can I help? 04:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have an unhealthy obsession with Nazis or something? Or it is just your massive inferiority complex at work? In any case, I suggest you go see psychiatric help.
 * By the way, are you related to User:Joey Eads by chance? Because you falsely claimed PD just like him and went ballistic just like him. --MuZemike 04:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael A. Kahn


The article Michael A. Kahn has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * All text turned out to be WP:COPYVIO from various places, see links in the article history. This leaves only a list of novels and a few headers. The person may or may not be notable, but there is no point in keeping an empty article and it is also a good idea to get rid of the WP:COPYVIO from the article history.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)