Hello Blurred Lines. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:2013 NRL Grand Final logo.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Nothing wrong with fair-use tag. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the file, the user describes the photo being a logo, but on the license tag, it says "This is a representation of a government, military, regimental, family, or other symbol such as a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest." --Blurred Lines 15:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invalid license type isn't covered by WP:F7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do I do when I see a non free photo with the wrong copyright license? --Blurred Lines 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some limited cases, WP:F3 allows the speedy deletion of files with invalid licenses. Otherwise, if you want to delete a file because of its license, try WP:Files for deletion. Or you could just fix it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blurred Lines

you deleted the following yesterday, or someone did, and I DO have permission to use it! A tag has been placed on File:Penelope Rowlands at a book party for Paris Was Ours, Idlewild Books, NYC, January 28,2013.jpg requesting that it be ...

Can you please help me upload it correctly. I've never tried to do such a thing before and I wanted to use it to illustrate an article. (Penelope Rowlands). I have permission from Algonquin Books's publicity department to upload it but I couldn't see where to put this information in the form

Thanks for any help you can offer!

Biographer1 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one in charge of deleting files, the admin RHaworth is, so if you would like to work something out with the administrator, please contact it. Also, if you had permission to use the file, you should of followed the directions on the deletion tag telling you what to do so it won't be deleted too quickly. --Blurred Lines 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll head on to the admin, now

Biographer1 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never tried to post a photo on Wikipedia before. Clearly, as you point out, I made a wrong move -- I'd to correct it. I have permission from the photo taker to use the photo.

I cannot contact RHAworth -- just tried but it seems to be closed to comments. Can you please steer me somewhere where I can resolve this problem?

I'd so appreciate it! Thank you!

Biographer1 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is nothing I can do. By me looking at you contributions, you saying that you "tried" doesn't make sense to me, because obviously you didn't contact the user at all. I'm not the admin here, RHaworth is, so you have to contact the administrator if you want the photo you uploaded restored. --Blurred Lines 15:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see above a speedy nomination that you did being declined and I think "Untitled" relates to another. If you look at my talk page you will see three image deletion nominations of yours being declined: Lionel Fanthorpe 2013.jpg, New Zealand national rugby league team logo.svg and 2013ALCS.png. Note my comment re Lionel Fanthorpe - I do not want to see any of these massive Google URLs such as appear in . All I want to see is: "copyvio of [explict image URL] as used in [explicit page link]". Please be more careful about speedy nominations in future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam, if you don't want to see a Google website as proof of a copyright infringement, please don't bother judging it, because previously, other administrators just looks at the link, and deletes it, doesn't even go to my talk page and make a unnecessary complaint. As you may not know, I have been doing this for months now with Google and other sources, and never received a complaint about it. You being the only one is ridiculous, which means that your being unsupportive of what I do, and that's just sad. --Blurred Lines 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and by the way, you did a awesome job on your templates, great work. --Blurred Lines 04:08, 10 October 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There is honestly have to be some kind of mistake. There have been numerous of photos that I have found having the wrong license tags, so being blocked for "disruptive editing" is bs. I'm doing this like everyday, and it is just a shame that a admin thinks that I'm tagging photos for deletion of purpose, and that message was not a warning, obviously, that was not how I saw it. How exactly is me tagging photos for deletion is "disruptive"? I'm just trying to do my job here, not being "disruptive", as what the admin Nyttend was "implying". --Blurred Lines 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My suggestion is to wait it out and use this time to get better acquainted with the CSD process. This was pretty poor judgement: magazine and journal are so close that they're treated the same in many templates (compare {{cite journal}}), and that's not AP or anything similar. You've done some good tags, but there are several clearly poor ones there, meaning that you should review the image policies, deletion policies, and related topics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2013 (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.