KingJames80pc
January 2022
editWikipedia is not a soapbox, see WP:SOAPBOX. PatGallacher (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2022 Southend West by-election, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alpaca the Wizard (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello KingJames80pc! Your additions to 2022 Southend West by-election 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
- 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 either 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please reread he paragraph above: policy requires that people who persistently violate copyright be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)I could ask C Fred to appear in the Southend Echo, since his actions seem to be very blocking. C Fred and others were asked to post information relating to an election candidate. They were given a link and 15 minutes to do their edit, as they were disrupting mine. I was not finished. I offered them a chance of adding as they say fit, but they did not. Block is excessive. Regardless of whether or not the newspaper verifies Wikipedia is biased against some people, there is still sufficient evidence that there IS a candidate, and this IS an election. Wikipedia can have NO credibility if it ignores newspapers saying there is a candidate. Worse, it has just deleted evidence of teh candidate ~ which is what they are saying. Needs fixin' C Fred is based in USA, so has NO idea what is in the UK news, other than what he reads in local newspaper. I am sure that if I ask the newspaper, they would like to interview wikipedia blockers. Given what I can see, I would imagine Czello, Doktorbuk, Bondegezou, Pat Gallacher would be of interest to them.
KingJames80pc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here KingJames80pc (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I was editing and interferred with, I gave a time of 15 minutes for others, who had ignored candidate for 5 days, to write it up themselves. They did not, so I started writing it up. It would not have been left in the same words, but you have to start somewhere and reduce down, paraphrase. I have done nothing wrong, except be hassled and obvstructed part way through. As it happens, all evidence of the candidate in an election, that has not been covered in 5 days, is still missing, and nominations close today at 4pm ~I am in Europe. As Pat Gallacher is part of those accused, he is not independent, and appears to be co-ordinating election bias C Fred cites he is 'Canadian English', which is relevant to accused Czello, who is also 'Canadian English'. There is a possibility of being related, but given only usernames are cited, we cannot know for sure. Better unblock and get an independent reviewer, not associated with edit. What about BrownhairedGirl ~ she's like No2 edits in World, and has experience of this hacking group that includes Czello, Doktorbuk, Bondegezou, Pat Gallacher ~ I would have them all kicked off Wikipedia for conspiring to fix UK elections. Conspiring in separate offline emails etc. There is evidence shown on a website, which is none too complimentary of these guys, screenshots and all. I keep an open mind, but looks like the candidate, article and this evening have shown there are biased editors ~ 'erasing' a candidate completely, which is not good for Wikipedia, or democracy. Wikipedia cannot be deleting the truth ~ that's bad ~ real bad~ especially on trumped up conyright, when all these interfering people did not in 5 days, and then jumped on me adding, during a work in progress KingJames80pc (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not convince me that you understand copyright policy on Wikipedia, or that you will not violate copyright again in the future. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2022 (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've merged your requests, only one open request is needed. Additional comment may be made as standard, unformatted comments. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As this user has name-dropped me, a note to any passing admins is that this user is a WP:LTA/sock account that promotes bizarre conspiracies about myself and other users (we're trying to fix elections by editing Wikipedia, apparently???). He has a particular attraction to by-election articles, as he likes to insert himself as a candidate, often with weak sourcing, such as his own twitter account. He now believes I'm Canadian English (not sure how he reached this conclusion) which links me to a "hacking group". Entertaining but rather deranged stuff. — Czello 10:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As this user has mentioned me, I'd like to say two things. Firstly, I've not edited much of the Southend West article, and certainly not the most recent additions. I'm not involved in this editor's editing at all, in fact. Secondly, I'd like to point admins to User:BillCaxton and User:84.122.153.7, who share almost identical behaviour, edit summary language /tone, fascination with byelection articles, and talk page edits. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this is undeniably our old friend Bill. Same editing style, same conspiratorial nonsense, same attempts to insert himself into by-elections. — Czello 10:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)