Wiki15071
Welcome
edit
|
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Wiki15071, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to George Poede have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
- 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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) 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.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- 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.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
January 2018
edit
Your addition to Roger Scully has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ioan Horga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bihor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited José Luis Meilán Gil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kenneth Shepsle
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kenneth Shepsle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://scholar.harvard.edu/kshepsle/biocv. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)- You were warned about WP:copyright violation on 10 October 2017 and again on 7 January 2018. At Kenneth Shepsle you contested deletion on the talk-page and then made seventeen further edits to the article without removing the content you had copy-pasted from here. With this edit to Simon Hix you added material copied directly from the New York Times. To be allowed to return to editing you will need to demonstrate that you clearly understand what was wrong with those various edits, and preferably also identify, here on this page, each and every edit in which you have copied any text from non-free external sources. I hope that this can be quickly resolved and that you can return to edit productively. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Wiki15071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the reasons for the block. I acknowledge my mistake by publishing copy-pasted material when I was preparing an article, even though if this was only published for a few minutes while I was still in the process of editing it. The source was cited from the start, but I copy-pasted entire sentences, which is wrong. I did this only for a few minutes when I was creating the article. All my successive edits were intented to add additional sources and reword the sentences that had been unduly copy-pasted. In my appeal to the article deletion, I did not try to shift my blame but ask the community to keep the article and allow me to correct improperly added sentences. I have tried to contribute many articles to the Wikipedia, but if the community thinks that I deserve to be permanently blocked, I will accept it. There was no bad intention on my side, and perhaps only an extremely Agile way of creating and editing articles, which does not justify any Wikipedia regulation infringements in which I may have incurred. I believe in the Wikipedia rules and procedures and am willing to accept the community's verdict.
Decline reason:
-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)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.
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 agree my previous message was not really an unblock request. It is just an apology to the Wikipedia community if what I did was harmful for the Wikipedia, and I accept the administrators' decision that has now been confirmed. Reading the questions above I also realise my knowledge of the Wikipedia rules is rather limited, while I understand the importance of these rules for the survival of the Wikipedia. I would by not means want that my sloppy editing style put in danger the future of the Wikipedia by making it vulnerable to copyright demands. My infringements were reiterated as the talk on this page shows, so the block seems fully warranted in order to avoid further damage to the Wikipedia. I am thankful to the administrators for having put an end to this before the damage was more serious or too late to repair, and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Wiki15071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you unblock my account I undertake not to copy-paste or closely paraphrase into the Wikipedia again. Please consider my previous request as an apology. Copyright is the right of creators of intellectual works, such as books, songs, films, websites, paintings, to decide how other people can use those works. Most of the Wikipedia is licenced under a creative commons attribution share-alike licence, which means that it grants other people permission to reproduce what is on the Wikipedia as long as the source is properly acknowledged and it is shared on equal terms. That is also why copyrighted content is not allowed on the Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia has the right to reproduce that content and share it under its licence. Copyright laws govern the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, so it is usually possible to use those ideas as long as the source is cited and they are expressed in your own words. This is what is considered 'fair use'. If my ban is lifted, I intend to avoid violating the copyright policy by (1) not publishing copy-pasted or closely paraphased content on the Wikipedia; (2) learning to make use of the test area so that my drafts are not published until I ensure they meet the copyright policy. Sorry again for my faults, and thanks to fellow Wikipedia editors and administratiors for bringing them to my attention, guiding me with the right questions, and encouraging me to continue editing productively as quickly as possible.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2018 (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.
Unblock discussion
editHello, @Justlettersandnumbers:. What say ye? Yea or nay?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Dlohcierekim, I'm very new at this, so if you or anyone else thinks that the above shows a clear enough understanding of the problem to unblock, do please go ahead and do so. What I personally would like to see – as I said above – is a commitment to review past edits for possible problems (of which I hope there are none). Wiki15071, could you agree to this: you list your last five article creations here, and identify any possible copyright problems in them (if none, just say so; if stuff was copied, say where from). If your assessment seems correct I'll unblock you with a condition that you will also review your other past edits. Does that seem fair? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, @Justlettersandnumbers:. Thanks for the prompt response. In everything I have done so far I have tried to respect Wikipedia rules. In my particular case, I have paid a lot of attention to basing everything I write on reliable external sources, and have always cited them, because I thought the greatest risk was to write original ideas, which I understood was contrary to Wikipedia rules. In my articles, you can usually see a lot of references, in such a way that nothing is unsourced and a basic article can start with five different sources and end up with more than a dozen as it grows. In the process of drafting an article, because I am scrupulous in basing everything on external sources, I recognise I may have incidentally copy-pasted sentences to my draft, which then I have reformulated to integrate them into the text, linking them to the rest of the text. When an article has many different sources, putting all that externally-sourced information together requires reformulating it in such ways that the final text of the article passes the test of fair use. If in any of my articles I have committed any copyright violation, it has been unintended and I am unaware of. I also follow somehow many articles I have edited in the past and always try to add any corrections or introduce improvements when I have the chance. This includes further improving the style on occasion. Needless to say, if I detected any potential copyright problem, I would correct immediately. I thank the administrators that, having access to specialised software and databases, have brought occasional breaches to my attention. The case you reported was a clear violation, even if temporary or unintended. I have to learn more about the Wikipedia, and this incident has taught me how the talk pages work, how to write e-mail to administrators, or how to ping users in discussions. From now on, I will try to be more careful with copyright issues, especially when starting new articles. I thank you and @Dlohcierekim: for your time and patience, and hope I will have the opportunity to prove that I can be a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia in the future.
- Wiki15071, perhaps I wasn't completely clear before. What I am suggesting is that you look at the last five articles you created (not counting Kenneth Shepsle, so specifically Carlos Prado Pampín, Paul Dobrescu, Fabio Franchino, José Luis Meilán Gil and Ghenadie Valuța), and note here whether there is any copyright problem with any one of them, and if so, what it is. After you do so, I'll look at them myself, and if I agree with your assessment of those five, I'll lift the block. If you have questions, please ask here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Justlettersandnumbers: I have gone through each of them now and I am not able to find any copyright violation. In Fabio Franchino I would add this reference to the EUSA prize for his book: https://www.eustudies.org/about/eusa-prizes/prize-winners.
Dear @Justlettersandnumbers: @Dlohcierekim: I there anything wrong with my unblock request? Sorry if I am being impatient, but I am not familiar with these procedures.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit
Hello, Wiki15071. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Unblock discussion
editDear @Justlettersandnumbers: @Dlohcierekim:: Have you had time to review my unblock request?
Dear @Justlettersandnumbers: @Dlohcierekim:: Will you please take the time to review my unblock request as a Christmas present?
Wiki15071 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been waiting for months for my unblock request to be considered. I believe I answered the administrators concerned but just did not receive a final answer from them. Could anyone please help me? I am still willing to do what it takes if there is anything else I can do. Everytime I log in to check the progress of my request my whole family gets blocked.
Decline reason:
You've been evading your block as User:Uaicat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2019 (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.
@Justlettersandnumbers: @Dlohcierekim:
You haven't been waiting months for your unblock request to be considered; until today, you did not have an open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yamla: Thanks for the message and please accept my apologies if something I said is technically inaccurate. This situation has really overwhelmed me because when it first happened to me, I was completely inexperienced with these procedures, and I still am. If you review the discussion above, you will notice that there was never any bad faith, and that I tried to fulfill all the requests from administrators everytime I was asked to. The last time I did not receive a reply from the administrators asking for changes, but I see now that a different administrator automatically cancelled the request because the ban had not been lifted after a given period of time. I just saw this now because everytime I logged in to see the state of my unblock request, my whole family got blocked from the Wikipedia for several days (IP block). If you could please review my last answer and tell me what can be improved, I will be happy to try my best. It has been a long time since this all started. Please help.
@NinjaRobotPirate: @Yamla: @Justlettersandnumbers: @Dlohcierekim: I need a lawyer! Is there any such thing n the wikipedia community? Some fellow user with konowledge of the rules and procedures who can act as a mediator, advisor or advocate on your behalf?