User talk:Srajakumar

Images
recently added image by you has proper licensing? The last one got slapped by a WP:COPYVIO. I'd suggest that you refrain from adding new images with unclear licensing in the future. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You dont need to suggest any weak idea for a public domain picture pulled from archive.org. You need to stop all this simpleton, uninformed bs and focus on vandals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srajakumar (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly refrain from using harsh language. This is not your personal blog. You may get blocked. Next time any image you put without proper licensing, I'll remove it. Secondly, I don't work for you so you are not in a position to tell me what to do. Adding images of someone's own preference without discussion in an important article like Sridevi's is nonconstructive. And you did that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. Talking with an authority given to yourself, It is not about you(never was) and yes I am in a position to criticize your overreach. I'll put the burden of proving proper licensing in the American legal sense where the such jurisdiction has its scope of validity. You don't know the system of proper licensing. This discussion is going to be constructive and will involve aspects you don't comprehend.


 * Srajakumar, please remain civil in your responses to other users. It's the only way we can all get along and contribute to building an encyclopedia.
 * In your description of the image you were discussing, File:Sridevi.jpg.jpg you assert "Perfectly acceptable picture from the public domain of archive.org." but there is absolutely nothing on the page https://archive.org/details/Sridevi53/ claiming that the image is in the public domain. The fact that the image has been widely shared on Pinterest and wallpaper sites does not put it in the public domain, nor does it satisfy WikiCommons Copyright rules. Cabayi (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an overreach of unprofessional administrators who lack knowledge of creative commons and the legal limits of such. For example this picture of said sourced website Bollywood Hungama, does not own the picture with copyright or in any legal sense(There is no copyright copy nor permission), yet on the validation that it has released for fair use under creative commons, all the admins are acting like its valid. The qualification is no different from the image from archive.org. It has it legal disclaimers as well. The discrepancy of standard and interpretation is appalling. These kind of assertion will get thrown out in the court of law. On the other hand, an image is in archive.org website as a public domain picture. Still another pseudo expert comes and does his pininterest search and claims its suspect. The said system is suspect. Stop. There was no unfair use. Just overreach by bellicose individuals.

Where is fair use. And then the harsh language bothered them enough to ban a user? Lets call the legal team in San Francisco to get involved and yall can sort this issue out.


 * Just a suggestion from some rando IP. The law isn't an issue. As a private nongovernmental organization, Wikipedia has its own policies. Your image additions must comply with them. See WP:NFCC. Sorry if your not understanding, but legal copyright requirements are only relative in guiding where policy sets the lowest requirements for fair use. Law doesn't restrict Wikipedia from having stronger criteria. The vitriol isn't helpful either. 24.117.19.153 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. only (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard - Notice
I wanted to make you aware of a topic at the Admin's noticeboard involving you, It can be found here: link. SQL Query me! 22:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this block is draconian and unnecessary, and a complete over-reaction to somebody simply being a bit dense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  05:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dense, and aggressive, and WP:IDHT... WP:5P4 isn't an optional pillar. The block allows Srajakumar to cool down and appeal once their civility has returned and they're willing to concede that not everyone who disagrees with them is pushing "simpleton, uninformed bs" or an "unprofessional administrator", a "pseudo expert", or a "bellicose individual". Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)