Scot Ric Scot Ric

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Obamafuscation

Hello Scot Ric Scot Ric,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Obamafuscation, may be copied from http://deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/reason-43-to-defeat-barack-obama-romnesia-no-obamafuscation/. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Obamafuscation

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Obamafuscation, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/reason-43-to-defeat-barack-obama-romnesia-no-obamafuscation/. As a copyright violation, Obamafuscation appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Obamafuscation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Obamafuscation and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Obamafuscation with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Obamafuscation.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Obamafuscation‎ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obamafuscation‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamafuscation‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 16:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Obamafuscation

Please stop recreating this article. We do NOT accept material copied from some other site on the Internet unless it is clearly marked under a free license. That is not the case with this material. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion again. If you persist in recreating this copyright violation, you may be blocked from editing. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the new article? Content has now changed. I have removed your speedy notice. It is now being discussed at The Deletion Discussion. Thank youScot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I say again, do NOT recreate it again. It has been deleted, yet again, as a copyright violation. If you persist, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

IT WAS A DIFFERENT ARTICLE!!! However, I respect your wishes. Sorry. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your copying of some blogged opinion piece in article space and elsewhere is highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

They have all now been removed. I am sorry for the problem it causes. The new article is now full of different content and has a deletion discuttion. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• ? That page is removed because I deleted it. Your attempt to nominate Budget support was disruptive as well and I am going to undo it. I think you should acquaint yourself with the purpose of Wikipedia and its guidelines and policies before you continue making such edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are kind. However the Budget support article needs a lot of to fix and I think the nomination is wise. Similarly I have made a move on Joe Bays - hope this passes ok with you? Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. This saddens me. I am making great strides in article deleting practices. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• You created another AfD discussion which shows you don't know how the process is supposed to work. You should really read the guidelines at WP:AFD and acquaint yourself with WP:BEFORE: it is clear that you haven't. I've blocked you for three hours to prevent further disruption--I have warned you to stop doing this--and to give you an opportunity to read up. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the AFDELETION discussion is appropriate for Joe Bays? Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No and that's why I closed it. Your nomination shows you didn't do the homework and a lack of understanding of the AfD process: AfD is not for article improvement. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You call me incompetent! I challenge you! This is outrageous! Why in a democratic world could I not have the right to nominate him for an AFD??? This is sheer cruelty! HUSSSSSSSS! Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a democracy, and even if it were, see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wikipedia discussion - death penalty

The article Wikipedia discussion - death penalty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not suitable for mainspace per WP:NOTESSAY

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, lists of game content or detailed instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read the video game guideline. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is unfair! I am trying to make conversation and discussion and have been treated with nothing but rudeness! And now I am blocked. I thought this was a friendly place. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you were told many time, Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss your personal opinions. You don't seem to want to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia, and therefore I must decline your unblock request. An optimist on the run!   18:35, 26 February 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

You have strange definition of "many time". I have been told once, and you are attacking me! If you are such an optimist surely you can see the good in anyone? This is the art of cruelty, like a Kafka cutting machine. Please take some real options in your stride. INDEFINATE BLOCK? I would like some more civility from this web site. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no evidence that you are likely to prove a positive benefit to this project. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:43, 27 February 2013 (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 can see at least three references to WP:NOT above, and that's at a first glance. Did you read it when you vandalised it? I'm may be optimistic, but I'm not naive, and I really don't see any evidence that you would be a positive benefit to this project. An optimist on the run!   11:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of Vandalised is a funny one. I had been directed to that page to make a discussion and started making a discussion. And then you tell me to read a load of dirty articles. You are not optimistic and you are not clever. Lay off this dark muttering and horse trading and let me back in the pool. Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Being harassed!!

PLEASE help me, I am being victimated by a group of ultra powerful characters on this Web Site, I have been making discussion and they are labelling me a Vandal and giving me Over-Long pages to study, and now I have been barred from making changes because they are inducing DRACONIAN PUNISHMENT like the breaking wheel, Just need some advice as to make things improve and get better? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Eight "helpme" templates are no better than one, they just give the impression that you are SHOUTING and annoy whoever has to clean them up. I suggest you read right through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You may decide that this is not the site for what you want to do - you might be better off on a forum-type site where you can explain your personal views. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)