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).

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

---

Request reason:

The reasons cited by Peta for why I was blocked are that two other accounts "edit a common pool of articles" as well as inserting a "100 incorrect image licenses." Also it is stated that these two other accounts participated on my side of a CfD debate way back in October 2006. My reply: (i) I checked if we really edit common pools of articles. Comparing histories shows different edit habits, dates, and articles. There is subject overlap as all three users seem to have interest in science bios. (ii) The CfD relates to a category that science bio writers mostly like. It was the non-bio writers voting against. Also it should be no surprise to find three accounts that agree, given the vote was 27 keep and 13 delete. Also it was one CfD 6 months ago. Simple statistics 101 tells us that one CfD is not significant:-) (iii) Where are these 100 claimed wrong image licenses? I know nothing about this. The first message I got from Peta on image license problems is the day before I was blocked (see her message and my reply by scrolling down). As you can see it is a vague message with no specifics. Being relatively new to wiki it is true I have accidentally tagged some licenses incorrectly (out of ignorance), but why doesn't Peta's message simply tell me what to do so I can correct it? I feel this blocking episode is a result of a rather 'trigger happy' set of conclusions that were jumped to.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bunzil confirms that you are a sockpuppet. Please contact the checkuser administrator, jpgordon (talk · contribs), direct if you have any explanation for the edit similarities and the fact these three accounts are editing from the same addresses. — Yamla 14:46, 18 March 2007 (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.

Welcome, SuperGirl!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
• Writing well
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Least there are some people around who are sensible like you. LW77 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to stop sticking in those Infoboxes. There is a lot of opposition to it as is obvious from the recent discussion on the Template:Infobox_Scientist . The result of the debate was no consensous. To keep sticking in those infoboxes, and ignore all those Wikipedians who are opposed to it is inappropriate, even disruptive. I would suggest that you make some constructive contributions instead, by writing some state-of-the-art biographies. JdH 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SuperGirl. Just wanted to drop you a note about using edit summaries. It is customary when making edits to leave an edit summary explaining the edit. This makes it easier for editors who may be watching the article or reviewing its history to know what your changes entail without having to review them all in detail. You may want to read over Help:Edit summary for more information. Hope to see you around. Kaldari 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the replacement is good(i suspect that they cut it from a larger photo).But the replacement is PD.Well i guess we can argue that the replacement is not very showing and thus fair use still apply s for the old one.Do what you want.Whatever you do ,do it before the 13,because fair use images are deleted 1 week after they have been orphaned.--Pixel ;-) 12:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure about current enwiki rules, but is it possible for the picture to be under fair use and creative commons attribution-sharealike licenses simultaneously? As far as I understand, if the picture is copyrighted, and copyright owner doesn't permit it's redistribution under CC, it can't be under CC license. And if it's under CC, it doesn't need fair use to use in wiki. Ilya Voyager 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --cj | talk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the images you are enlarging are natively smaller than the size you are specifying, resulting in ugly pixelation.--ragesoss 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonas_Salk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ginsburg Vitaliy Lazarevich.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more explicit in your edit summaries? While I appreciate your restoring the See Also section back, it took forever to find where it had been removed. By that point, I'd seen so many unhelpful edit summaries I was rather upset. An edit summary of "rm some" (another editor's) is about as helpful as a random scream in the dark, and as unnerving.

I guess I can understand why you could characterize this as vandalism. I wonder if that editor has ever read Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Good grief, is this torture Albert Einstein month? (suitably stretched out over time, as it were ;-) Shenme 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to some extent I was venting, after seeing all those other edit summaries which were near useless. After finding the actual edit that removed the see also section, I repeated my implied criticism of the person who removed it as unnecessary, in my note on the talk page. I've been told it is 'bad' to label another editor's good faith edit as 'vandalism', which is part of why I looked for the edit. However, it is _hard_ to diffentiate between vandalism and a truly bad edit. :( Shenme 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot apply a creative commons license to a public domain to a domain image; and most of the images you are uploading have nothing from their source to indicate that they are infact public domai. Please don't make false copyright claims. --Peta 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peta, Pls can you be a little more specific? Most of the pics I have uploaded are where the author died >70yrs ago. Are you talking about those ones in particular or the few others? For the PD-old-70 photos, I've been using "Creative Commons 2.5." If that is the incorrect one to select, please can you advise me which is the best choice for PD-old-70 stuff.SuperGirl 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SuperGirl. IANAL, but you cannot apply any license, including CC, to an image that you did not create, because it isn't yours to license. Either it is PD or it is under someone else's copyright. If there is a copyright in force, you need to get the creator's permission to upload the image, unless they put a license on it. If you believe that the image is PD, you still need to give attribution so that everyone knows it is legit. Click on the image on Thomas Jefferson for an example of art in the public domain. Also take a look at Commons:Licensing. HTH. Smallpond 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeEllis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Horton Conway.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frederick_Gowland_Hopkins.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sir_Francis_Simon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wwrouseball.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nobel.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Clark Slater.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Derek Abbott.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wiles.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SuperGirl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Charles E. M. Pearce - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sommerfeld.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Elias Rudolph Camerarius Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Thomasstevensontox.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lars Onsager2.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) 17:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]