Would you please clarify the source and copyright status for the following images. I take it as obvious that these are not all your own work.

Already deleted as obvious copyvio:

Please note that you may be blocked if you are found uploading unsourced or falsely licensed images again.

Also, please stop pasting that "POV dispute" tag on your own user talk page. That tag and the category it includes are only for articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are blatant copyright violations are subject to speedy deletion with no prior warning. As for the others (where it's pretty obvious that they are not self-made, but I have no immediate proof of the source), I expect prompt and active cooperation on your part in clarifying the sources, or you'll be blocked for obstructive behaviour.
As for the POV tag, there is no active discussion, so there's no need for a tag, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Sarkozy Voodoo.png

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarkozy Voodoo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. See report at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for image abuse

Okay, I gave you a chance to come clean about your image uploads. Instead, you chose to lie, repeating the claim that they were all your own work [1]. However, this image, uploaded by you on 22 May, was used by the Greek news site Sigma Live on 20 May [2]. Blocked for a month for persistent fraudulent image uploads. All images will be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have the rights for these images. Your actions are tottaly unjustified. ThanksHistorikos (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|Legitimate rights of the pictures exist, but was not given opportunity to provide them. The block was imposed for retaliation on rightfully editing a disputed article, rather than the picture rights.}

You also claimed you owned the copyrights of a personal photograph of Mr Karamanlis from 40 years ago, and of a map authored by a German guy called M. Schmellmann according to its copyright notice. That casts some doubts on your claims here. You may prove your copyright claims by mailing evidence of your authorship and identity to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". (That information will be handled confidentially.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I am undoing my block and will leave a further block decision (both for the edit-warring and the image issue) to other, uninvolved admins to decide. Just so as nobody can blame me for using my admin tools in a dispute I'm involved in. My judgment on the matter itself remains unchanged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the Sarkozy voodoo doll is a blatant copyright violation (see [3]). In view of your repeated fraudulent image uploads, I have reinstated Fut. Perf.'s one-month block of your account. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More