User talk:Yahadzija

Archives

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Someone claimed that the article was stupid so I duly quoted the right authors and the text under quotation marks Yahadzija (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Technical only, the block has expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the uploading of files with questionable copyright that's the problem, as described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios (~~hmm, it looks like nobody informed you of that - I'd assumed they had, sorry~~). If you agree to not upload any more files until that discussion has concluded and to comply with any outcome, I'll be happy to lift the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (No, I see you were informed, here and I missed it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What time is it?

Zebedee, You are not correct administrator! You do violence against my original images & my work at all. Invalid license is not a reason for delete of original images. Help me in license selection for my orihinal photos Yahadzija (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, an invalid license *is* a very good reason for deleting uploaded images. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not justified blockade

Hi Zebedee, Why are you doing it?!

My own pictures from the field and private collections can not be violation of the rules and criteria. Are these the original recordings of museum exhibits? Your suspicion is hasty and unfounded!

Let me a fair wiki-activity Yahadzija (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, if you agree to not upload any files until that discussion is concluded, I will be happy to lift the block. After that, you must abide by the conclusion of the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade time is off one hour ago?! Yahadzija (talk) 09

58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes, the block has expired - I had forgotten it was so short. Please do not upload any more files while the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios is still open - but please do take part in it and provide your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the previous block expired, you have resumed your copyright violations. To protect the integrity of the Wikipedia, I have replaced your block. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{deblockade request|Yamla's blockade is ununderstanding, without of real reasons. This is not a race of few seconds}}Yahadzija (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Yahadzija (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla's blockade is ununderstanding, without of real reasons. Which violation?! This is not a race of few seconds!Yahadzija (talk) 11: 55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Deblockade request for: 92.36.223.54, a oznaka blokade je #7459566.

Yahadzija (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The background or reason isn't constructive. Please check the justification of reasons for blocking. See text above and my overall contributions. Yahadzija (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked until you agree not to upload any images, or demonstrate an understanding of copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Deblockade request

Yamla blocked me permanently in the period when I had to be unblocked. Does it deserve such a rigorous blockade?! With best regards, Yahadzija (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make a proper unblock request using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Yamla blocked me permanently in the period when I had to be unblocked. Does it deserve such a rigorous blockade?! See my contributions in en-wiki and others Yahadzija (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block followed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios in which you elected not to participate. In order to be unblocked you will need either to recuse yourself from any editing involving images or convincingly demonstrate that you understand our copyright and images policies and that you will henceforth comply with those policies. Just Chilling (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for the mistakes and misunderstandings about the expiry of the previous blockade Yahadzija (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This still doesn't show that you understand the reason for your block, namely the uploading of copyrighted pictures. You have to demonstrate that you understand our copyright policies with regards to imaging. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

?!

I just uploaded the original of my images. Yahadzija (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just going to scan photos, at least try to make them before 1923. Then, in the US, it's free. If you're planning to take photos of buildings, or objects, go ahead! I do know that you're blocked, and I could upload them if you send me a link, but they'll have to be free first. —JJ Be rs 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (I thought this editor was only a temp. block, not indef)[reply]

Please do not do this. While the user is blocked, they are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. This includes convincing other editors to edit on their behalf. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of my (original!) images are very important for my homeland! Yahadzija (talk) What is the problem (to hard) Yamla? Yahadzija (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you don't understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU. For example, you claim to have personally taken a picture in 1943 (File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg), but we believe you simply scanned that picture. Once you can convince us you understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU, we will be happy to unblock you.

It is true that I personally copied the image from my family collection. I could give it to anyone who wants, including You&Comp. Yahadzija (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]: Please fix your signature. It's broken. It's using a massive font and not even closing that font correctly. So, yes, thank you for admitting you are providing the wrong information on your image uploads. You'll have to stop doing that. That's required by WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU. Once you convince us you understand all of this, any admin is welcome to unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, you *do not own the copyright* of a photo and it *is not your own work* just because you scanned it from a family album. Ownership of a print of a photograph *does not* convey copyright ownership of the image. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mission

I participate in Wikipedias because I have a lot of unique sources of information and images from my homeland. Please be patient and helpful in the selection of licenses. Thanks a lot, in advance! What license do Yo suggest Zebedee, Haugh Yahadzija (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of selecting the right license! I'm suggesting that you might not have the right to upload it at all, and that the only images you can upload are ones you actually took yourself personally. If you did not take the original photo yourself, and you can not prove that whoever did has released it with a suitable license (or that its copyright has expired), then Wikipedia can not use it unless there is a valid fair use rationale (and I strongly suggest you don't even try to think of those until you have properly understood copyright itself). Now, the only way you are likely to be unblocked is if you agree not to upload any more images at all, and not add any more images to any articles, until the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios has concluded - and that you agree to take part in that discussion and abide by its outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the exclusive owner of photographs and author of copies. It would be strange if Wikipedia does not accept such gifts. I will seek another medium that will gladly accept. User talk:Haugh said Yahadzija Yahadzija (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I am the exclusive owner of photographs and author of copies" is meaningless from a copyright perspective. Did you take the photos yourself, personally, with a camera? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with 2-3 exceptions! I take the photos myself, personally, with different cameras. Yahadzija (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then the ones you took yourself you should probably be able to use, but not the others. What you need to do now is agree (temporarily) to not upload any more photos or add any photos to articles until you have discussed things at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios (and explain there what you have told me here) and you get an agreement by consensus for you to continue. Will you agree to that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I expect answer, advice and recommendations. I'm not a liar nor a fraud...Yahadzija (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rifat_Had%C5%BEiselimovi%C4%87

Unblocked

On your assurance, above, that you will stop doing any image work until the discussion is completed, I have unblocked your account. Please now go over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios and explain there that you will only upload photos you have actually taken yourself, and that you will also not copy any text from other places into Wikipedia, and wait until you get a decision there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I unblocked you under the strict condition that you did not upload any more images and did not add any more images to articles, but instead engaged in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios and wait for and abide by its outcome. And you immediately added an image to an article again, with no attempt to join in that discussion. As you have abused my good faith, my unblock is therefore rescinded and you are indefinitely blocked again. I have done all I can to try to help, so I'm finished here now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What play do You do

My former image Siprage.jpg you have returned (as Šiprage.jpeg), not me. I respected the recommendations. Why are you playing with my work? Yahadzija (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is you adding the image to an article, which violated the conditions under which I unblocked you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Šiprage.jpeg returned Coommons (See history of it uplauding and deletion). I realized that the time allowed to their undisputed picture back in its place.Yahadzija (talk) 08: 50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going further

I'm tired of your inconsistencies. I'm going further to more constructive media... See You... Yahadzija (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could join this site (I have no clue how it works). —JJ Be rs 14:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure, but how?!

Yahadzija (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could look it up, but here's a link: Link. —JJ Be rs 15:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Unclear reasons of last nor new blocking

Decline reason:

This is not a valid appeal rationale - see WP:GAB. If you need further clarification of the reasoning behind your block then you may post a new message on this page. Please note that you do seem to have been given a full explanation and too many pointless requests may lead to your access to this page being revoked. Just Chilling (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I thought my explanation in the "Blocked again" section above was clear. If you cannot understand it, perhaps your command of English is insufficient for you to be working on the English language Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is clear, but blockade reason not at all.

Yahadzija (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My unblock request #7470646

At what stage is my unblock request? Yahadzija (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous unblock requests have been declined and you have not made a new one on this page, so you do not have a current unblock request at any stage that can be addressed here. If you have made a WP:UTRS unblock request (which I guess from the "#7470646") then you would need to contact WP:UTRS again to ask about progress. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When You the file Siprage.jpg return to the Commons (as Šiprage.jpg), I have used it, but not before that. Why am I penalized?

Yahadzija (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed "(temporarily) to not upload any more photos or add any photos to articles until you have discussed things at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross project image copyvios (and explain there what you have told me here) and you get an agreement by consensus for you to continue." (emphasis mine) This was the basis for your unblock. This agreement is the reason you were unblocked. Yet you violated that agreement by adding that photo to the article. And you violated the agreement by not discussing the situation, as you said you would. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Restoring quoted image on Commons I understood as approval for the continuation of cooperation!

Yahadzija (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?

What is going on with my unblock request?! Yahadzija (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no open unblock request as far as I can see. It's unlikely one would be granted to you at the moment either, but you are welcome to request one. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request, again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I think that last time I was unreasonably blocked. I used the image that had been returned to the Commons. Is it a big mistake?

Decline reason:

Boing has explained the reason for your block below. You violated the terms of your unblock. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yahadzija (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You "used the image that had been returned to the Commons" after explicitly agreeing not to use any images at all as a condition of your previous unblock (at least until your uploading of images had been resolved). And that has been explained to you several times already. You really don't seem to understand what is being said here, so I can't help thinking your English might not be sufficient for you to contribute to the English Wikipedia and maybe you should stick to the Wikipedia in your native language? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will it make you happy to dispel the associates? Yahadzija (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the faintest idea what that means, because it is not coherent English. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dont worry - be happy! Let me work...Yahadzija (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. you must first address the reasons for your block.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18337 was submitted on May 19, 2017 20:49:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

The Unblock appeal suggests to turn this way.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This blockage is the result of a misunderstanding. I can write more good articles: See my statistics. IP-address: 89.111.226.75, Blockade #7470646.

Decline reason:

I see no indication that you understand why you were blocked or that you would be able to avoid further such "misunderrstandings" if I unblocked you. Huon (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yahadzija (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Team answer

Hello Yahadzija,

As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. You can follow these instructions.

Thank you,

Just Chilling English Wikipedia Administrator

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I repeat:This blockage is the result of a misunderstanding. I can write more good articles: See my statistics and articles in Genetics and Bosnian Geogtaphy.

Decline reason:

Only one request is required. Closing this one, but leaving the older one open. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yahadzija (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18372 was submitted on May 26, 2017 22:36:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This blockage is the result of a misunderstanding. I realized my mistakes and apologize besause it! I can write more good articles: See my statistics and articles in Genetics and Geography of Bosnia

Decline reason:

No. This block is not a misunderstanding. The reason for block was explained to you several times, but just don't want to (or can't) understand it and keep writing that it's a "misunderstanding". It's not. You were violating copyrights and fail to acknowledge that. Also, you wrote an WP:autobiography and you are obviously trying to edit logged-out to evade this block (that is called WP:block evasion and is not allowed). Too much problems, yet you fail to respond to any of them. Since this is your 11th (!) unblock request without addressing the issue, I'm revoking your talk page access. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yahadzija (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18423 was submitted on Jun 02, 2017 20:38:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18533 was submitted on Jun 15, 2017 23:14:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Эlcobbola _talk 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Science Jajce 89.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Science Jajce 89.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19332 was submitted on Sep 25, 2017 21:23:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Polygenic inheritance.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Polygenic inheritance.jpg. 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) 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bosnian names of primate families for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bosnian names of primate families is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian names of primate families until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]