George Maverick

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raz Klinghoffer (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, George Maverick! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raz Klinghoffer (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chicdat was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. In addition the page you created was distinctly promotional in character, which is not permitted. Wikipedia isn't a medium for marketing, PR, or any other kind of promotion. JBW (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Raz Klinghoffer has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Raz Klinghoffer. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raz Klinghoffer (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem in draft

Hello George Maverick! Your additions to Draft:Raz Klinghoffer have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Final warning

I responded to you on my talk page. At that time I did not see you had recreated the draft, including its infringements. If you do so again I will immediately block your account from further editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Recreated the draft again despite the above message. Furthermore, this is after I had responded in detail at my talk page, explaining what would have to be done in order to have the copyright released by his or her client (paid editor), in order for us to legally host such material, without a copyright problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am Sorry for my actions. I have understood my mistake of Copywrite violation.I have realized my mistake and can assure that I wont make this mistake again. I disclose that I wont do these kind of violation or wrong things which are not suitable for Wikipedia.Please do forgive me. George Maverick (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now I have read and understand my mistake. The reason for my block was Copyright Infringement. I can assure you that I wont violate the copyright infringement laws of Wikipedia. I have been asked to answer a few questions in my previous unblock request. 1) Copyright is the right to copy to be simple.Copyright refers to the legal right of the owner of intellectual property. 2)Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) 3)Copyrigted content is not allowed in Wikipedia as it follows the US's Copyright laws and does not allow random users to use copyrighted content. 4) Copyrighted content can be used with the permission of the owner of the Copyrighted content. If the Owner of the Copyrighted content grants the permission, then it can be used. But it should only be used less often. 5)I will use my own words and my own content. I will avoid close paraphrasing and will get the proper licence from the Copyright's owner to use their content. Thanking You, George Maverick

George Maverick (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

These answers are not generally correct. For example, you have completely missed WP:FAIRUSE. You are welcome to reread WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE and make a new request, but note that another admin will be reviewing it. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock request to you. I have understood the reason for the block of my account. It got blocked due to Copyright Infringement of my submitted article Draft:Raz Klinghoffer. I am really sorry for that and can assure you that I would not commit that mistake again.I have already submitted two requests earlir and have read all the Laws and rules to be followed in Wikipedia. Now I have read the WP:FAIRUSE which says that only free sources/content should be written in Wikipedia as Wikipedia is a site where users can copy the content for their use.Which means that Copyrighted content are not to be use in Wikipedia often. I have also read about the WP:COPYRIGHT which says "Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)". This means that We need the licence of the Copyrighted content's Owner to use the Copyrighted content and it should be used only less often. Thanking You, George MaverickGeorge Maverick (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked by Fuhghettaboutit. SQL^{Query me!} 14:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If unblocked...

...you must understand that the website of the subject of the proposed article is not considered a reliable secondary source (nor are interviews), so if you cannot find several examples of published content to cite other than these, the draft does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and will be declined. See WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely Sir.... I have understood the above mentioned statement and have read the Wikipedia's Notability criteria. I will not commit the mistakes that I have committed before.What should I do now Sir?David notMD — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Maverick (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account, based on your above assurances. Please understand one more thing—I already referred to it, and it's explained in the text of the canned template I initially posted above, and you have even referred to it in you unblock appeal, but I want to highlight it, as highly relevant here for complete understanding. Taking existing content and performing only surface modification–changing a word here and a word there, so that it no longer reads exactly the same—does not take content outside of infringement. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

More specifically, you write upon one recreation "All of the words are totally mine now". I would observe that this was not even close to true as to direct copying. For example, the first paragraph was wholesale lifted:

Yours:

"Raz's music has appeared on many shows like Netflix's 'Insatiable', "Lucifer", NBC's 'Shades of Blue', "Shadowhunters", Fox's "Almost Family" and ABC's "The Rookie" etc."

Original (from here):

"Raz’s music has appeared on many shows like Netflix’s ‘Insatiable’, “Lucifer”, NBC’s ‘Shades of Blue’ , “Shadowhunters”, Fox’s “Almost Family” and ABC’s “The Rookie” etc."

But, in any event, the following was modified by you, but it was still infringing – far too close paraphrasing:

Yours:

"He has spent over 16 years in the producing field which compiles of the genres of Pop, Electronic, Rock, Hip hop, metal and other genres.He has worked with some of the well known Musicians ... He has even Ghost-Produced for some of the... His track "La La La" received airplay across the country on powerhouse top 40 stations Z100 (NYC), Q102 (Philly), XL106.7 (Orlando), 91.7 ZHT (Salt Lake City), and KISSFM (Phoenix)..."

Original (from here):

"Raz has spent over 16-years producing and mixing most genres of music including pop, electronic, rock, hip-hop, R&B, Americana/folk, film scores, adult contemporary, country, and metal. Raz works with up & coming and established artists..., and ghost produced for some of the... His track “La La La” received airplay across the country on powerhouse top 40 stations Z100 (NYC), Q102 (Philly), XL106.7 (Orlando), 91.7 ZHT (Salt Lake City), and KISSFM (Phoenix)..."

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for created yet another copyvio in your sandbox--and a blatant one--after the prior explanations, at the Teahouse and my talk page, the above warnings, the prior block for copyright infringement, your unblock appeal, and my prior unblock based on your assurances of understanding the issue and that it would not happen again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi there . Yes I know that I have again done this.But to be frank, I just typed the content that my client gave me.I didn't even try to publish it. The thing is that I needed some assistance weather I have cited my resources properly. As assisted to me before, I have cited some content in " " . Please do forgive me for my mistake George Maverick (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Well, you promised this wouldn't happen again. And it happened again basically immediately. You've had plenty of warnings and you've had a prior block, I simply don't see you ever coming back from this. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Wikipedia Moderators,as mentioned already, my actions were done mistakenly so please do forgive me.I won't let this happen anymore. My main aim is to have a personal assistance and the reason is citing resources. I have committed mistakes and am really sorry for that. Now I have read and have understood the norms and rules of Wikipedia. I hereby disclose that I won't do any violation against Wikipedia. I am now clear about the copyright infringement and how to cite resources. Now, I am requesting you to unblock my Wikipedia Account as I won't make these mistakes again. George Maverick (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We do not have the resources to waste on incompetent paid editors who repeatedly put Wikipedia at legal risk and who repeatedly renege on their promises. Your access to this talk page has been removed - go find some place else to promote your clients. (If you do spend some time genuinely learning about Wikipedia's copyright policy and about copyright law, you can then make an appeal at WP:UTRS, but not for at least six months as suggested below.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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 mean this in the nicest possible way... Why should we believe you this time? What's changed since last time you claimed that you understood our rules, and wouldn't let this happen again? SQL^{Query me!} 03:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to reviewing administrator: This is a paid editor who is also a serial copyright violator. Somebody who is paid to do a job should do it very well, instead of wasting the time of volunteers and creating legal jeopardy for the encyclopedia. I oppose any unblock for at least six months and encourage the blocked editor to make policy compliant contributions to other WMF projects in the interim. Maybe they will actually learn something. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 39075

UTRS appeal #39075 has been declined. User is banned from UTRS for six months. User is urged to heed the discussion on this talk page.

Sorry, no! Your client gave you? Please. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promulgate your client's work. You assured us the last time that it would never happen again, so either you were shining us on or you have no grasp of how to not violate our restrictions on work copyrighted elsewhere. Either way, you have no business editing Wikipedia. Wait, it is your business. Rephrase. There is no reasonable expectation that you will be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. There are too many issues with what you are doing to discuss via this limited medium. Please see your talk page. I'm afraid I have no choice but to decline this wholly inadequate, and if I may say so, somewhat cynical request. Furthermore, I am heeding Cullen328's recommendation and banning you from UTRS for six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)