User talk:Wowaconia

Incoming responses will be addressed, resolved, and then cleared; so that new entries to the page are easily accessed and readable, as per the Help:Talk page segment “Etiquette” that states the acceptability of this practice “Others delete comments after they have responded to them.” - Thanks for your time, Wowaconia

Copyright

Wowaconia, copyright is something Wikipedia does and must take seriously. As discussed on the Amy Klobuchar talk page, your reading of copyright permission of an image you uploaded is simply wrong. Even if it were right, however, there is no reason whatsoever that putting that image on that page is so urgent that you must repeatedly revert other editors to do so, even to the point of breaking the three revert rule, which you have been warned about before. (Each time you blanked this talk page, which is your perogative, but the effect of the warning is the same.)

Since warnings and discussion have not prevented you from violating Wikipedia copyright policy, I am forced to block you. You are welcome to contribute when the block expires in 24 hours, and you do make many valuable contributions which are appreciated, but please take more care with Wikipedia policies.

Jonathunder 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how the statement on the Senate's website does not put this photo in the public domain

(emphasis added)"2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested."

How can you have photo credits if the photos aren't public information?

The arguements against this photo were stictly about copyright and there was never any arguement whether headshots are the wiki-standard for politicians (which I think almost is alomost unarguebale).--Wowaconia 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I think there is no issue of copyright but the three revert rule allows up to three reverts "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions".

This was the post not a revert - 18:38, 15 January 2007

This was revert 1 - 19:10, 15 January 2007

This was revert 2 - 21:17, 15 January 2007

This was revert 3 - 22:03, 15 January 2007

Then I was blocked.

Two of these were in reponse to Jonathunder who undid my edits, therefor Jonathunder actions are in violation of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Three_revert_rule#Administrator_involvement "...if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken." See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."

--Wowaconia 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

3RR not broken, Sysop who blocked engaged in content dispute

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=3RR not broken, Sysop who blocked engaged in content dispute |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=3RR not broken, Sysop who blocked engaged in content dispute |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=3RR not broken, Sysop who blocked engaged in content dispute |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}