User talk:Sex-position-demonstration

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sex-position-demonstration!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif

File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Simonxag (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif

File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked^

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "My account has been blocked, (see the "block-log" regarding my account), but the block is wrongful. I'm accused: "Vandalism-only account: Account created on Commons only for uploading copyvios", but in truth: (1) I own the copyrights on the images I've uploaded; (2) I have committed no copyright violations; and (3) I have committed no vandalism. The person who blocked me egregiously violated the Commons "Blocking policy", which states in pertinent part: "Clear explanations and warnings about Commons policy should be engaged in before ... blocking a user for license problems". According to the "Blocking policy": a block should be imposed only after "a strongly-worded warning" is written to the user, but no warning was given in this case. According to the "Blocking policy", a block should be imposed only if the user uploads after being warned, but I have not done that. The administrator in this case disregarded policy to block me, even though I own the copyrights on the images I've uploaded. The administrator who blocked me noted that one image I uploaded was extracted from a video, but so what? I am the copyright-owner on that video, and I am committing no copyright violation. The administrator who blocked me noted also, "a cameraman was visible in the gif"; but so what? Sex-position-demonstration (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Obvious troll is obvious -FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

What you quote from the blocking policy does not mean that Commons is defenseless against single purpose vandalism accounts. You first tried to edit war in Wikipedia with various IPs, you trolled around on some users talkpages, now you get tired of discussing and try to push screenshots to Commons with strange explanations and a strange username... Sorry, but we not need this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I haven't tried any "war", and I haven't "trolled" any talkpages. There's nothing "strange" about my explanations. I own the copyrights, and I have written consent to publish from the subjects. How is that strange in any way? Your disbelief is paranoia at best. (At worst, you're engaging in some religious-based crusade to censor --- it has happened through history. I'm not accusing you of that, but I see no other explanation for your unreasonableness.) How does my username justify your unreasonable ban? If you want to make it Commons policy to censor any image of sex and ban anyone who uploads one, why don't you be honest about what you're doing? Your nonsense about "copyright violations" only detracts from the integrity and credibility of wikipedia. Sex-position-demonstration (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, http://incestvideo.tumblr.com/ (where the gifs where posted a month or so ago) is yours? That would mean that the woman in File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif is your sister, and the woman in File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif is your mother. Is that right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You ask, "That would mean that the woman in File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif is your sister, and the woman in File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif is your mother. Is that right?"

That's irrelevant, no? What's relevant, on the other hand, is that when I click the tumblr-link you just posted, I read: "I oppose the censorship and ban enacted by Wikimedia Commons." Furthermore, here is my blog stating: "I hold the copyright on these images. I oppose the ban reported at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sex-position-demonstration." The blog includes a video, with a copyright notice and watermark; and the blog also contains the image under current discussion, with the caption "I own the copyright on this image, and I authorize its use at Wikimedia Commons. I hereby affirm that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this image. I agree to publish that work under the free license “Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0” (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project."

So much for the administration's claims about "obvious copyright violations", and so much for the administration's rationale for banning me (and without the warnings required by official policy).

Sex-position-demonstration (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't really relevant whether you are having sex with your sister and mother in those videos. I was just curious why people make those kinds of silly claims in relation to porn videos. Anyway, here's the problem - you uploaded a gif animation made from frames of a longer porn video that had previously been released on the internet (but cropped to remove the watermark). That sets off warning bells. Now you have made claims about the videos being yours on a Tumblr site, but it's just a Tumblr site. Tumblr pretty much exists to post images of unknown or dubious origin. There is a real problem here on Commons with people uploading copyrighted material which, by law, is not allowed. People who have never contributed anything to Commons before create an account and upload some piece of "amateur" porn or "nudism" that they have downloaded from some Tumblr site, Flickr account, Imagefap, etc and it may take years before it is discovered to a copyright violation. So you see why it may be difficult for people here to accept what you are saying without some better form of establishing copyright ownership. I am not an admin here, so I can't unblock you, but I wanted to explain what may have happened. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You write: "There is a real problem here on Commons with people uploading copyrighted material...." I understand that, but that problem is supposed to be dealt with according to the set Commons:Policies and guidelines. You write: "it may be difficult for people here to accept what you are saying". Okay, but that's really not the issue, under the Commons:Policies and guidelines. You write: "Tumblr pretty much exists to post images of unknown or dubious origin." So why are you proffering tumblr pages as evidence of a copyright violation? Aren't tumblr pages (which pretty much exists to post images of unknown or dubious origin), in fact, the only evidence you're relying on? --150.135.161.105 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested, but perhaps someone else will take your bait. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tumblr pages (which pretty much exists to post images of unknown or dubious origin), in fact, are the only evidence you're relying on. It's not about baiting; it's about a couple of administrators evidently acting on personal agendas in conflict with their duties to [Wikimedia Foundation]. --150.135.162.16 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)