User talk:Former user 20140220: Difference between revisions
| Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
* I suppose it comes down to the way that assistance is communicated , in particular i find the way FisherQueen communicates is in a stupid sarcastic manner that i cant see will make her many friends in the real world , if thats the way she communicates , and considers that an acceptable way to behave . |
* I suppose it comes down to the way that assistance is communicated , in particular i find the way FisherQueen communicates is in a stupid sarcastic manner that i cant see will make her many friends in the real world , if thats the way she communicates , and considers that an acceptable way to behave . |
||
* anyway , I have other things to do than waste my time arguing over this . I dont tolerate rude disrespectful behavoiur from anyone , and i behave in a civil manner , but maybe think about why you are getting a negative reaction if you are communicating in a hostile manner and use a bit of common sense . Some of the arguments here are so petty . |
* anyway , I have other things to do than waste my time arguing over this . I dont tolerate rude disrespectful behavoiur from anyone , and i behave in a civil manner , but maybe think about why you are getting a negative reaction if you are communicating in a hostile manner and use a bit of common sense . Some of the arguments here are so petty . |
||
[[User:Moutray2010|Moutray2010]] ([[User talk:Moutray2010#top|talk]]) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:40, 8 May 2010
Welcome
|
Clan Moutray
This article is not ready to be in article space. Would you move it back to your user space to work on until it's ready? Mostly it's just way too long, but some other issues are:
- The references quote long passages from other works; in some cases it looks like entire works are quoted. That is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article; a reference entry in a Wikipedia article should direct the reader to material used as references, not quote the reference.
- Much of the material doesn't seem directly related to Clan Moutray. An article about one clan should not recap general Scottish history.
- Wikipedia articles (from any language Wikipedia) cannot be used as references. Links to Wikipedia articles can be included in "See also".
- Noted members or relatives of the clan don't need their entire biographies in this article. Instead, include a list of them (maybe with brief descriptions), and create separate articles for them.
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I moved the article to userspace. Please follow the above tips from Auntof6 and try to improve the article. Welcome to Wikipedia! MoozerSkadoozer (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Clan moutray
A tag has been placed on Clan moutray requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: right direction
Hey..., please don't give up so soon! Consider to read this article >> Wikipedia:MMORPG and maybe you can find other meaning of Wikipedia. Oh, don't forget to typing 4 symbol of tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message to leave your signature. Happy editing. :-) Ę-oиė >>> ™ 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, your article is not lost, it is at User:Moutray2010/Clan Moutray. I'm willing to help you get it into shape for Wikipedia if you want -- just let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Clan Moutray
Hi Thanks for deleting my wiki page on Clan Moutray. I have back ups fortunately . Do you have any explanation for this ? Otherwise I am going to make a complaint regarding your behaviour . I look forward to recievibg your explanation yours sincerely Paul Moutray
- Hi there Paul. The page Clan Moutray was moved to User:Moutray2010/Clan Moutray by User:MoozerSkadoozer on April 29th. The reason given was "This article is too long and unorganized to be in article space. Moving to namespace until improvements can be made.". A few minor notes for you:
- Encyclopedia articles are not yours, mine or anyone elses. See: Ownership of articles
- Deleted articles are still there, hidden away. See: Requests for undeletion
- Remember the Trifecta please.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Editing the Clan Moutray article
Hi, I got your message on my talk page. When you click on "talk" next to my user name, the message goes on my talk page. I'd rather communicate either here on your talk page, or on the talk page of the article (User talk:Moutray2010/Clan Moutray), whichever is easier for you. To do that, just edit the page and type your reply under the text you're replying to, leaving some space between the old text and your reply. I'm using the "watch" function on both pages, so I'll see it either way. How about if you pick one of those pages, then leave a message about what ideas you have for the article? --Auntof6 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aunto ,
I'd rather reply under the article page , as its easier to keep track of the discussion in relation to that article . Thanks regards Paul
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.drbronsontours.com/bronsonjohnmoultrie.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The article St.Andrews Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- unsourced and reads as WP:original research.
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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Use of {{hangon}} isn't correct when and article has been proposed for deletion. Instead you can just remove the {{PROD}} from the article. However to prevent the article being listed for deletion you should expand the article to show why, for example, the society is notable. Currently this isn't clear and doesn't explain anything about the society, what it does etc. NtheP (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted as blatant copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
References
Please refer to Help:Footnotes for instructions on how properly to include references in your articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America
A tag has been placed on Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
its not copyright infringement as its taken from Samuel Lewis topographical dictionary , which is out of copyright 200 years ago . just because some other website has also quoted from it , doesnt mean i am infringing the other website, as the other website, is referencing the same UNcopyrighted information that i am ..
remove this block now , and stop wasting my time .
you are incorrect .
nomination of Portclare==
A tag has been placed on Portclare requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America
A tag has been placed on Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No context
Your new article has been tagged for deletion for providing "no context". What this means is that you have not given the rest of the Wikipedia community enough context to identify what it is you're trying to write about in this article. There's a lot of information in the article (probably too much to be useful in a single article), but it's not clear what the unifying concept behind all of that information is. Can you please seek help to identify what it is you're trying to write about so that the article can be properly written? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America
I have nominated Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (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 may also click on the signature button 
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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:WikiDan61. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:RadioFan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RadioFan (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
William Moutrie
The article on William Moutrie is for information about him, not relatives who may or may not merit their own article. Also articles should be written in an encylcopedic fashion not just a list of one or two line statements followed by a load of links that don't explain what they refer to or support. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- email from Moutray 2010 posted
- thank you for your comment .
- however your opinon is no more valid than mine , so i believe we havea difference of opinion .
- who makes you the final arbitrare of who / what is appropriate?
- i think you are out of order, adn incorrect.
- i stand by my submissions .
- i will resubmit if you have altered it .
- its about the person , which can include his background , to make it more comprehensive.
- who are you to say otherwise ? ?
- If you'd written about his background I wouldn't mind but you wrote about his brothers and what they did and are commemorated, that's not relevant to this article. I'm not the final arbiter of who or what is appropriate, wikipedia is a collective effort and has substantive policies to assist in the development of articles. All I beleive I did was to apply these policies correctly. You may believe differently and as you said my opinion is no more valid than yours, all I was doing was offering advice. NtheP (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not your personal genealogical website
Please note that Wikipedia is not your personal genealogical website. While you are clearly passionate about the history of your family, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as the repository of that history. Many of your family appear to be notable, and such articles are appropriate. However, this edit to Seafield Tower contained vast swaths of irrelevant and unreferenced material, including large sections of untranslated Latin text which does no one any good without a translation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Nomination???
What nomination? ToxicWasteGrounds 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Template:Do not delete
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Talkback
1. the unblock is not valid . 2. the user who blocked me , is no longer a member of wikipedia , which may be a reflection of his culpability , and wishing to atone for this . 3. as there was , adn is no reason to block me , you are infringing my rights and discriminating against me , having given no valid reason , i'd like this reviewed, by someone impartial and not friends of other reviewers , who have repeated the error and compaunded teh injustice , .
remove the block please. thanks very much
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (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.
- Paul, please note that "Your reason here" will not get you unblocked. You actually have to give a reason. ToxicWasteGrounds 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
yes , i want to appeal the block . 1. i am providing information , of historical record . 2. i am finding my informatino deleted , by speedy deletion , in less than 30 mins , adn sometimes 5 mins . 3. in frustratino i have addressed my discontent with the behavoiur , in particular , wikidan , radiofan , and tan , who have now , attempted to block me , which i believe is an abuse of their position . this woudl not be permitted in real life situation , where they are pushing users who are attempting to contribute , simply when i am on a learning curve . yes i know this is not a personal genealogical website, however, when there is information of historical fact, adn i am in a postion to know this , as it is something i have researched, then i am adding it , to find that it is blocked under miniscule frivolous reasons, without proper explanation . when i complain and object to it , then i am finding myself blocked , eg what is the reason that Tan has blocked me . i believe there should be a penalty on those who are using blocks inappropriately , all i can do is appeal to logic . if there is a historical fact, that is included in encyclopedias, in national archives, in scotland and washington , there are places , whos history corroborates the infomation , then i dont dont see why i am having my entries deleted , regardless of whether they are family members or not , if presidents and kings have honoured them as notable , and noteworthy , eg the peerage , debretts , then who are these petty 'editors' to say that i cant add these facts? even when i link to other books , eg raineval , other families have provided links to their family , but then when i do it , then its put up for speedy deletion , give me some explanation , otherwise i am going to collect all this information and complain directly to wikipedia . i think it is either , incompetence or negligence in the way i have been treated. i dont see why anyone woudl waste their time , to contrinute work , charitably, to be treated in this manner , i have recieved complaints from other people who have got frustrated at deletionists and pettiness , that they havent bothered to continue to contribute . time for some common sense . i look forward to recieving satisfactory response . this is harrassment , and im not happy to have information misrepresented , as i dont like the slant of the incorrect informaiotn you have redistributed . yours sincerely paul
Decline reason:
I am declining this because it does not seem to address the two main problems, as far as I can see. The number one problem from my perspective (which may be slightly different from the blocking administrator's perspective) is your cavalier attitude towards copyright. Wikipedia has a strict policy against copyright violations (please read WP:COPYVIO) and you have been repeatedly cutting and pasting text from other sources into Wikipedia. The other issue I see is that you are creating articles which do not fit the style or purpose of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has an expected standard for the subject matter, organization, and style of article, both in terms of what sorts of material is appropriate to build an article about, and how to write those articles. Please read WP:NOT for the sort of material that is generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. A lot of the information you are trying to add to Wikipedia may possibly be appropriate in some manner, but you seem to be going about things all wrong, to the point of disruption. Please take some time to learn how to add information to Wikipedia, what sorts of things make proper articles, and how to work within the long-established conventions here. Since this unblock request does not seem to indicate that a) you understand why you are currently blocked, and most importantly b) how you intend to change your behavior to avoid being blocked again, I am going to decline it for now. If you read Wikipedia's policies and guideline I have cited above, and can indicate that you understand and intend to abide by them, you will be much more likely to be unblocked. --Jayron32 19:01, 3 May 2010 (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.
- Wikipedia is not your personal blog; you haven't read any of the applicable policies and instead play the victim persistently. There's a reason all your contributions have been deleted. If you opt not to conform to our policies, you will be immediately re-blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- And if you continue to insult other editors, you will also be reblocked indefinitely. Please read WP:AGF. You don't seem interested in learning how to be a good editor, you are simply asserting that you are right and others are (and here you put various insults). 72 hours isn't long, why not calm down, read the various links you've been given, and ask what you should do to make better articles? You also need to stop plagiarising other articles and in particular avoid copyright violations, I've removed the ones I could find. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
For when you return from your block:
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Paul, while you are blocked, you really should read the links that WikiDan61 has provided, the conflict of interest guidelines, WP:NPA, etc. if you wish your articles and edits to survive and continue to edit. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would also strongly recommend that you learn about how to cite your sources, as that is how information is verified on Wikipedia. Click here for an introduction. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding your comments that I am abusing my position, I have no position. I'm an editor just like you. All I can do is bring issues to the attention of administrators. I, and a number of other editors as you noted above, have identified a number of editing issues to you and finally to administrators. When your block expires, you should consider taking a step back and review Wikipedia:Your first article for good information on what is expected of all editors, particularly in citing sources.--RadioFan (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problems with John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant
Hello. Concerning your contribution, John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant, 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://www.drbronsontours.com/bronsonjohnmoultrie.html. As a copyright violation, John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant 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:John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.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:John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant 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:John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although I have found other blatant copyright violations and plagiarism, this article was simply plagiarism, lifted from a 1947 South Carolina journal by the writer at drbronsontours. I've removed the speedy delete and noted on the talk page that it is plagiarism. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- It has been blanked as we try to verify that copyright was not renewed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Attribution
Please note, that even if you copy material from public domain sources as at John Moutray, you should use the appropriate or otherwise indicate that it is a word-for-word copy. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom
Paul, this has nothing to do with ArbCom. I'm speaking from my experience but not in my role as an ArbCom clerk here. Please also note if you haven't seen it that I've deleted St.Andrews Society as a copyright violation. This is not personal and I presume that this is just ignorance on your part of not just our policy but copyright laws, but I hope you aren't doing this in other venues as well and will demonstrate here that you won't do this again. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of John Moutray
I have nominated John Moutray, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moutray. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NtheP (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Portclare, Moultrie Courthouse. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portclare for Portclare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moultrie Courthouse for Moultrie Courthouse. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
YOUR BEHAVIOR MUST STOP
In a recent email to me, you stated:
you are ridiculous and pathetic . i will just keep reposting , as your biased attitude is apparent . your opinion means nothing to me .
I'm not sure where there is a "bias". You're not posting on some contentious issue, you're just posting nonsense about your family tree or something. I'm not sure if you have read other articles on Wikipedia, but none of them look like yours. There is a certain style in which the information is presented, and certain standards a followed to determine if an article is worthy of inclusion in the first place. By stating that you will "just keep reposting", you are obviously trying to ignore all the standards and do as you please, making WP your personal place for posting disorganized nonsense. This leads to nothing but disruption for other editors, who have the unenvious task of performing rollbacks of clearly non-encyclopedic edits.
People have tried to help you, but you don't want it, and you threaten to continue your disruptions. I hope you are banned permanently. — Timneu22 · talk 09:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your recent message was unnecessary and removed by another editor. There are several users watching your edits and behavior. We hope you will be able to create meaningful content to improve Wikipedia, but if you are unable to listen to helpful advice and/or you continue to resent other editors, your stay on Wikipedia will probably be very short. We hope you'll change your ways. Good luck. — Timneu22 · talk 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional copyright concerns
I'm afraid that your userpage seems also to be a copyright concern, as it looks as though you have copied wholesale from several sources. I have blanked it pending some verification that you have usable permission for this text or that it is public domain. Otherwise, it will need to be removed and replaced with original content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1. the block is not valid . ( if so , please giev me a legitimate valid reason . ...otherwise the arbitrariness , creates injustice .. im having all teh reasons except the kitchen sink thrown at me , to justify the block ... the user who blocked me , tanthalas39 , is no longer even a member of wikipedia , which sort of suggests to me , he joins under differnt member names, creates chaos , then retires, to restart again under a different user name . ... he has already threatened to keep blocking me , and the comments made by his friends here , suggest that they are bias ... 2. the user who blocked me , is no longer a member of wikipedia , which may be a reflection of his culpability , and wishing to atone for this . 3. as there was , adn is no reason to block me , you are infringing my rights and discriminating against me , having given no valid reason , i'd like this reviewed, by someone impartial and not friends of other reviewers , who have repeated the error and compaunded teh injustice , .
remove the block please. thanks very much
Decline reason:
It's true that User:Tanthalas39 is not currently active, but that doesn't seem to have had anything to do with this block. I'm not sure what you mean by 'bias' in this situation; you appear to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is, and tried to use it as a place to publish more of your genealogical research than is useful or appropriate in an encyclopedia article. When people tried to help and correct you, you didn't seem willing to learn to use Wikipedia in a way that's appropriate, and so a block was necessary. The unblock request doesn't indicate that you understand why you were blocked, and indicates that, if unblocked, you'd continue to make edits which are disruptive to the encyclopedia, so an unblock isn't possible right now.
You might find it helpful to read some of the rules that other users have linked for you: the notability criteria, the guidelines to reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. If you have other misunderstandings, there are useful links in your welcome message which might also be wise to read.
If you decide to request unblock again, make sure you can clearly explain what you did wrong, and how you'll edit differently in the future. Also, avoid blaming others for your block- as far as I can see on your talk page, many people tried to help you avoid being blocked, and instead of thanking them and taking their advice, you were rude to them. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 5 May 2010 (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.
Please, only make one unblock request at a time, and put them at the bottom of your talk page. It took me extra time to find and remove the templates for the extra two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i need an explanation of what i have allegedly done wrong .
the alleged reason for this block is disruptive editing ... please explain this . please illustrate with the disrputive editing policy , adn how it applies to me . this is why i am appealing the block
thank you .
Decline reason:
You were blocked for tendentious editing, threatening to continue same, violating copyright, accusations of bias sans proof, etc., etc. Demanding that we furnish you with an itemized list is flat-out filibustering (which is disruptive, as is your accusation of harassment) and as such I am now revoking your talk page access. Further unblock appeals must be made to the en.wiki Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Good day. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (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.
- Have you already read the links I made? You're a very fast reader. You have the answers to your questions now- why don't you go ahead and explain why your edits were disruptive, and how you'd edit differently in the future? I can't help noticing that you're choosing to use very poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and no capitalization. Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia; in addition to the material that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, we really do also need reasonably correct English. Are you able to write correct English, or would it be easier for you to suggest changes on article talk pages, and let others add the information in an appropriate form to the articles themselves? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Might I further suggest you read this definition of disruptive editing. In your case, the disruptive behavior involved tendentious editing: "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors", specifically, your desire to add vast swaths of material regarding the genealogical record of the Moultray clan, and your repeated introduction of copyrighted material. Further, you behaved in a uncivil manner toward those who tried to help you. Also, please note that you do not have to continue to post unblock requests. This just clutters up your talk page, but is unlikely to actually achieve the desired unblocking action. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- so your argument is Might is right . so your gang is bigger than my gang , so you win ? thats your argument
its called a difference of ipinion , eg i think tis relevant , others remove , without explaination . ?
this is harrassment .
are there not any other people who need your assistance on wikipedia , except for you to be on my back . ?
- Look, we've all given you blue links to several pages which describe the many policies and guidelines you are violating. Your material was not removed without explanation, you were given in-depth explanations which you refuse to acknowledge. If you insist on ignoring it when people DO tell you what you did wrong, and instead try to divert the conversation away from the honest attempts to help you do it correctly, what do you want us to do for you? Instead of playing the victim, why not learn what you did wrong the first time, so you can do it right next time! --Jayron32 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Augher
Regarding your recent additions to the Augher article, do you think its really useful to add information that was written almost 200 years ago? The information might have been useful then, but is certainly no longer current or germane. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
These are Facts . They are Historical Facts,hence under the History section. They are not my opinions,but from Public Domain sources. That is your opinion,but articles should just present verifiable facts . You don't own these articles , so if you have any further facts to add ,feel free. I personally am interested in the History of Ireland and Scotland prior to 1970. The Irish and Scottish like History and have long memories,hence the many local Historical Societies. I'd rather that local people edited the article if they prefer ,but if you start removing every post I make ,then I'll have to make a complaint ,as there is a pattern of behaviour from you and one or two others,of interfering with my submissions. I'm pleased to see other decent editors have improved the articles on Seafield Tower,Moultrie Courthouse and Sir John Moutray. It's probably better if you find someone else to scrutinise as I feel you are looking for trouble and your behaviour could be deemed as harrassment . I have however had useful comments from other editors. My comments refer specifically to you.
- Hi. I'm afraid a huge obsolete description of the town, copied from an 1837 source, is really not appropriate as the main current description of the town in a modern encyclopedia article. If there are significant historical facts in it, by all means extract them and write about them in, say, a "History" section. It's great that you are personally interested in the History of Ireland and Scotland (I am myself, having ancestry in both places), but that doesn't mean you can change Wikipedia articles to be repositories of old writings. Please do pay attention to the way Wikipedia articles are written, have a read of WP:MOS, and please don't just copy in large tracts from old sources verbatim and out of keeping with the established Wikipedia style. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
of course , lets debate this , but lets do so in teh article discussion section .
that is your opinion , and i am sure you believe what you say , but its your opinion nonetheless , and the purpose of this is to present facts .
if you want to add facts , then add them .
you dont own the article , and therefore its better that this is discussed , about what is not factual.
this provides further information about the town , any articles about the town , refers to Favor Royal , from King Charles II . it refers to Alatdawin , which is on the Favor Royal Estate. The Favor Royal Forest is a local attraction , now called the Millenium Forest. It has the largest Megalithic site in Ulster for these reasons i dont think its appropriate for you to simply remove my submission in its entirety. please refer to submission on Portclare. Inclusion in Lewis Topographical Dictionary is reason for Notability. if you want to dispute any facts , on a factual basis , then please do so , but dont disrupt editing in the manner you have done , but removing it . please feel free to edit any passages which are factually incorrect , please provide the basis for your assertions.
Favour Royal Millenium Forest http://www.millenniumforests.com/16forests/map.swf In that portion of the parish which is in the county of Tyrone is a remarkable place called Altadawin, where it is said that St. Patrick assembled the first of his followers : it is a valley, 150 feet deep, through the centre of which a tongue or land of considerable altitude extends, and on the summit stands a large rock in the form of an altar, adjoining which is another rock, in the form of a chair. The valley is covered with trees, and a beautiful stream runs nearly through its centre. A royal residence of an independent prince of the O'Nial family is reported to have stood here formerly. http://www.from-ireland.net/mon/lewis/errigaltrough.htm
- Hi. The disagreement is not about whether the information is factually correct, it is on whether it is appropriate to be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. Old documents can certainly be used as sources for your own writing, and some quotes can be taken from them, but Wikipedia is not a repository of old documents and they should not simply be copied verbatim into articles. Doing that will produce a whole mish-mash of styles that will make the encyclopedia very hard to read. Please do as people have suggested and read a lot of Wikipedia articles to get a feel for the style of the encyclopedia, and have a read of the style manual at WP:MOS - you'll find lots of information on how to use sources for your own writing, how to quote from them, and how to reference them.
- Seeing as you have added the content and had it removed, you now need to discuss it on the article's Talk page - repeatedly re-adding material that has been challenged is considered edit-warring, and can lead to an editor being blocked if they continue. I'll start a discussion on the Talk page - it will take me a few minutes, so please be patient
- OK, I've started a discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Augher, and have included a link showing the addition you made. Please discuss it there and hold off re-adding the disputed content until a consensus is reached. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:50, 8 May 2010 (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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Augher castle, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://moultray.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/castles-associated-with-moutray-augher-castle. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Errigal-Trough, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.from-ireland.net/mon/lewis/errigaltrough.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Augher Castle, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/150221. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
STOP IT!
You're creating nonsense copyvio articles, and creating duplicates like Augher castle and Augher Castle. Please stop this behavior! — Timneu22 · talk 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Look MATE > Dont attack me . \ focus on the content , not teh contributer . I will complain that you should be blocked . if you can rewrite the information then please do so . otherwise dont bother to communicate with me again . your opinion is your opinion. we do not have consensus . i welcome other opinions and contributions to make the article better . but dont attack me ,and dont remove my submissions in a vexacious disruptive manner .
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)We've talked about copyright before, so when you created two articles adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia, you broke the rules. From your edits, it's hard for me to tell whether you are choosing to break the rules, or whether you don't understand them. Either way, your edits have caused disruption that others are having to clean up, so I'm giving the other editors a one-week break from cleaning up after you. In addition, I want to remind you that we have rules against speaking rudely to other editors. I understand that you are frustrated because you don't understand how to edit in an effective way, but it is not acceptable to take out your frustration on other users, and I am willing to block you from editing again if your edits, or your interactions with other editors, continue to cause disruption after your block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fisher Queen is in error , as she has blocked me , for "G12 copyright"...however , i quote , form her previous comment "There's certainly no necessity to copy the whole source directly- it may not be under copyright, but that doesn't make it part of the best possible encyclopedia article on the subject. Your comment doesn't really address that problem; have you ever read an encyclopedia article that included long passages copied from other encyclopedias? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)"..ie she acknowles that it is not under copyright ... so what is the basis for the block ... she has a difference of opinion , but that is not consensus , and should not be deleted hastily , as this is disrputive . to delete is either in error( negligently) , or deliberately( maliciously) , either way there is no justification to either: (a. remove my submission , which are not infringing any copyright (b. to then block me , on the basis of "copyright violation" TO REPEAT ... the Source is Public Domain . Please comment and edit the Content , to make it better . Dont comment on the Contributor or behave in a vexacious manner , including :(a. removing submissions ( b. Personal Attacks (C. random and unwarranted Blocks . thank you .
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1. i appeal this block . on the basis , that it is not G12 - copyright infringement , as it is public domain , in teh same way Portclare is , quoting from Samuel Lewis Topographical Dictionary . 2. I was not rude and did not attack other editors . in fact i was attacked ( please see the comments i recieved )_ , and what infact i did do was say DONT ATTACK ME, which is not an attack against anyone else , but is a Defence by myself from Attack . I stated , " please comment on teh content , not teh contributer, and please feel free to edit the article " 3. TO simply remove my article by a mass delete , is not appropriate , as there is no conensus . it shold be left up for atleast a week to allow other editors to contribute and comment . 4 you have no authority to remove Articles , they were not copyright . % , you have behaved in an impulisve and arbitrary manner , and that is the reason why i am appealing this block . 5. i also object to the explicit threat made by you that you will block me agin in future. if that is the case then i think your priveledges should be withdrawn as you are abusing them
Decline reason:
Whether or not a source is from 1837 and may be public domain, it never allows you to simply copy and paste the contents into any article. Your additions and edits should be unique. You may wish to read the guide to appealing blocks before even thinking of requesting unblock again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (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.
QUOTING WIKIPEDIA POLICY
"Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web( IE Public Domain ) that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. Also, if the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC-BY-SA and GFDL – the text may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for another reason, but it is not a copyright violation. They may donate the material through the procedures described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, although until the donation process is complete the article should be masked with the
Former user 20140220 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=1. apparently i was blocked in error due to alleged " copyright infringement'... i have provided evidence that the nominator FisherQueen , herself acknowledged ,it was not copyright , therefore contradicting herself . 2 on grounds of "copyright Infringement' , and showing its not copyright infringement , you then say " even if its not copyright infringement , as it is public domain , its also irrelevant if its from 1837 , which is relatively recent in historical terms , but maybe historical from an American Point of view , however .. you then try to change teh goal posts and say " i will never allow it to be simply copied and pasted " ... again 1. i didnt simply copy and paste it ... i edited it , added information , and welcome further contributions... if you are quoting from a historical source, then it may be word for word , but which policy is being broken there? i can only follow logic and fairness . i dont follow the logic of you upholding a block , based on copyright , when you acknowledge there is no copyright infringement . (B. your opinion , does not make it fact , and i have explained , and was evident to see that there was no simple copy and pasting , so again i am insisting that there is no basis to uphold a block , and therefore to remove the block , otherwise i would like this reviewed by another separate impartial administrator . |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=1. apparently i was blocked in error due to alleged " copyright infringement'... i have provided evidence that the nominator FisherQueen , herself acknowledged ,it was not copyright , therefore contradicting herself . 2 on grounds of "copyright Infringement' , and showing its not copyright infringement , you then say " even if its not copyright infringement , as it is public domain , its also irrelevant if its from 1837 , which is relatively recent in historical terms , but maybe historical from an American Point of view , however .. you then try to change teh goal posts and say " i will never allow it to be simply copied and pasted " ... again 1. i didnt simply copy and paste it ... i edited it , added information , and welcome further contributions... if you are quoting from a historical source, then it may be word for word , but which policy is being broken there? i can only follow logic and fairness . i dont follow the logic of you upholding a block , based on copyright , when you acknowledge there is no copyright infringement . (B. your opinion , does not make it fact , and i have explained , and was evident to see that there was no simple copy and pasting , so again i am insisting that there is no basis to uphold a block , and therefore to remove the block , otherwise i would like this reviewed by another separate impartial administrator . |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=1. apparently i was blocked in error due to alleged " copyright infringement'... i have provided evidence that the nominator FisherQueen , herself acknowledged ,it was not copyright , therefore contradicting herself . 2 on grounds of "copyright Infringement' , and showing its not copyright infringement , you then say " even if its not copyright infringement , as it is public domain , its also irrelevant if its from 1837 , which is relatively recent in historical terms , but maybe historical from an American Point of view , however .. you then try to change teh goal posts and say " i will never allow it to be simply copied and pasted " ... again 1. i didnt simply copy and paste it ... i edited it , added information , and welcome further contributions... if you are quoting from a historical source, then it may be word for word , but which policy is being broken there? i can only follow logic and fairness . i dont follow the logic of you upholding a block , based on copyright , when you acknowledge there is no copyright infringement . (B. your opinion , does not make it fact , and i have explained , and was evident to see that there was no simple copy and pasting , so again i am insisting that there is no basis to uphold a block , and therefore to remove the block , otherwise i would like this reviewed by another separate impartial administrator . |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Give a good reason for your unblock As a user requesting to be unblocked, it is your responsibility to explain clearly and briefly, in easily readable English, why your block violated Wikipedia's blocking policy. Specifically: Be brief. Administrators will often decline to read requests that are too long. Stay calm. The use of profanities, ramblings, ALL CAPS SCREAMING and the like will lead to the decline of your unblock request without further review of your edit history. The block duration may also be extended. State what is wrong about your block. It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair". You must explain why it was wrong, and why this means that the block violated our blocking policy. Address the block reason. As explained above, you have been informed about the reason for your block. You must address this reason in your request. This means that you must either explain why the block reason does not apply to your case, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again. Give evidence. If you state that you did or did not do something, please provide a link in the form of a differential edit ("diff") if possible.
- i have read the blocking policy, and A. i have requested to be unblocked. B. i have stated that the Block was WRong . The reason the Block is Wrong , is that teh reason for the Block , was given as G12, Copyright Violation , however , as i have explained , its Public Domain , adn is not copyright Violation , as i stated clearly on the Page at the time , so this was disregarded . I ahve also explained that i did not simply Cut and Paste. 1. I edited it . 2. there was not consensus to remove this , amongst teh community , as it had only been submitted and , then removed within 30 mins , not affording me or anyone else to further add to the article . 3. i am entitled to a logical fair and balanced explanation as to why the block is being upheld , as there is no justification for the reasons outlined above.
Comment It looks to me as if your latest block is for copyvio problems related to several of your new articles (see the copyvio notices above), not just the 1837 text added to the Augher article -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine , its not the end of the matter. this is a mistake , as it all refers to the ONe Book/ Source , ie Lewis Topographical Dictionary of Ireland .
- Either its public domain or its not
- either public domain informatoin can be used or it cant
- either its notable or its not
- either its factual , or its not
- either , there is consensus or there is not.
in my opinion , i contend ...]
- Either its public domain or its not= Yes , its public domain ( its irrelevant about the date . i Like history . if its 12th century , its still relevant ...if verified and referenced)
- either public domain informatoin can be used or it cant ---> public domain , can be used , = yes
- either its notable or its not --> yes its notable .. as its noted elsewhere in teh world and on teh internet
- either its factual , or its not--> yes its factual , i wasnt expressing a personal opinion , or dreaming it up ..
--> also this administrators opinion , is not definitive, its his opinion . i am making reference to teh policies, which apply to everyone. 1. show me the policy where you cant use public domain . 2. show me the policy where 1837 , means it cant be referenced. 3. show me where publicn domain cant be quoted "word for word" if properly attributed ?
This article incorporates text from A topographical dictionary of Ireland, by Samuel Lewis, a publication from 1837 (reprinted 1984) now in the public domain in the United States.
- i look forward to he answers to my questions.
- either , there is consensus or there is not.--> there is no consensus, as its only been submitted for 30 mins , before it was interefere with by Boing , and fisherqueen .
- This article incorporates text from A topographical dictionary of Ireland, by Samuel Lewis, a publication from 1837 (reprinted 1984) now in the public domain in the United States.
- 3. show me where public domain cant be quoted "word for word" if properly attributed ?
- The Wikipedia Manual of Style, at WP:MOS, describes the style in which Wikipedia articles are to be written, and they are not to be written in an 1837 style with 1837 facts stated as if they are current - I think that pretty much rules out using a verbatim copy of an old source as direct Wikipedia article content. It can definitely be used as a source, and parts of it could certainly be quoted (eg something like 'Samuel Lewis described it as "blah blah blah"<ref>...</ref>'), but I don't think Lewis's original words are appropriate for making up the article text itself. If that was allowed, we'd soon end up with the entirety of "A topographical dictionary of Ireland, by Samuel Lewis" copied verbatim into Wikipedia, which I really don't think we want -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- 1. i dont really think its a question of what "we" want , as you dont speak on behalf of the Entire Wikipedia Community , however all you can say is it is not what "you" want , which is your opinion . There is no consensus , and there hasnt been enought time allowed , as you interefered with my submission , within 30 mins of me posting it .
Can you justify this as reasonable?
- 2. you dont own the article , so you can edit it , to improve it .
- 3. 1837 english is easily understandable , as its modern history , its not like it is written in Olde Englishe , where i could appreciate your point .
- 4.A small village , hasnt changed much since then , so where things are different , then they are free to be edited , corrected , but still does not justify (A. removing the entirety of my submission , (B. blocking me for quoting from Samuel Lewis's Topographical Dictionary ? Does it?
- Well, why don't we just leave it and wait to see what consensus develops, and hold off adding lots more Lewis stuff to other articles until then? There's no rush to get your articles written and there's really nothing to be gained by all this personal argument and accusing people of being "vexatious" and of "interfering" etc - Lewis has waited since 1837, so I'm sure he can wait a bit longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats a reasonable plan . we can wait and see what the consenus is . i thought i was adding additional information as context from Lewis's Topographical Dictionary . I just didnt see how removing it all , made that particular entry on Augher more useful , by having it removed . Perhaps not all of it is relevant , but it is a small little village and wait with interest to see what differences , if any , there have been since 1837 , as its something little villages in ireland seem to take pride in , is that that they havent changed that much , and as such , much of what was there on the Survey in 1837 , is probably still there for posterity . Perhaps if it was formated better , re-phrased better , but that would be a more acceptable and reasonable outcome in my opinion than simply scrubbing it , after i had submitted it . I await with interest further comments from Independant third parties . regards
- Please sign your comments with ~~~~. — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why ? you know its from me , and i have you to correct after me anyway . Let me know if you have any positive suggestions on how to improve the Augher Article . you seem very interested and involved in it , so i thought you'd be a good person to ask how to improve it .
also , you seem to know Wikipedias policies so well , according to you , so i thought i'd repost a few here for you to chew over .
New pages
Yellow highlight indicates pages that have not yet been patrolled. Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. Other options: 1 hour • 1 day • 5 days • 10 days • 15 days. Pages older than one month are not shown. For a log of recently patrolled pages see Special:Log/patrol.
don't demolish the house while it's still being built: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation.
don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can put new users off - consider Template:New unreviewed article instead. Consider using Friendly to welcome newcomers, and placing
Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft of your article in draftspace or in your userspace first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting.
unsourced biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 can be proposed for deletion using a new "sticky prod" process. Using Twinkle is recommended for this; or see template:prod blp for instructions for manual tagging.
-if you have anything constructive to add , please post it here . I'd be very interested to hear something constructive .
- Your attitude is combative and unappreciated. I am simply suggesting that you should add ~~~~ to your posts because that's the policy/guideline. We have policies and guidelines, and we like to do things a certain way. Why can't you try to take the advice people give you, even on something as trivial as adding your signatures? There's a reason people find it hard to assume good faith with your edits. Please stop the combativeness. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- don't demolish the house while it's still being built: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation.
- don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can put new users off - consider
- Instead Consider using Friendly to welcome newcomers, and placing -
"Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you". on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting. Moutray2010 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- You actually HAVE that welcome at the top of your page ... you just seem to be ignoring it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be Hostile ! - Obviously you didnt understand it , as you havent applied the policy . _ i am not satisfied with the service i have recieved with you as an Administrator .
- don't demolish the house while it's still being built: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation.
- don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can put new users off - consider
- I'm not overly please with the service I have received from you as an editor either, but because I believe that everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, I'm doing my best to help, because I WP:AGF. You wight want to re-read the messages that are in the Welcome message at the top of this page, and perhaps WP:Wikilawyering too ... this giant wall of text, the bashing of people whose role is to protect Wikipedia, and accusing people of not being neutral 3rd parties is not a good way to start and end your Wikipedia career. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A common mistake of misguided advocacy is when a person assigns themselves a mediator and proceeds with judging the sides by telling them whether they are right or wrong instead of helping the sides to better state their positions and to find common grounds. It is not uncommon that one side is wrong indeed, and in such a case a mediator starts looking as if taking sides thus alienating the wrong side and triggering their defense instincts, further entrenching them away from the amicable resolution.
- maybe you could lead by example, and watch how you communicate . if you are dismissive and patronising, then anyone with any self respect is hardly going to consider your comments in a constructive light . Anyway , I'm over this . I am assuming you are well intentioned , assume good faith , and just have to assume that you are attempting to be helpful in a clumsy way that comes across as rude and hostile . I disagree with your decision to block me , and i see no justification for it , however this is a waste of my time , when i had made goodwill gestures to contribute, and instead of helping and editing my article submissions to make them better , they have been stripped away , and I have been attacked , and lectured to in a pedantic manner . I have recieved some useful feedback but not from Bwilkins , Timmeu22 , Wikidan or FisherQueen .
- I have recieved useful feedback from Schmidt , Jayvon , Eastmain , Richard Norton , and Npep , aswell as from ArbCom.
- I suppose it comes down to the way that assistance is communicated , in particular i find the way FisherQueen communicates is in a stupid sarcastic manner that i cant see will make her many friends in the real world , if thats the way she communicates , and considers that an acceptable way to behave .
- anyway , I have other things to do than waste my time arguing over this . I dont tolerate rude disrespectful behavoiur from anyone , and i behave in a civil manner , but maybe think about why you are getting a negative reaction if you are communicating in a hostile manner and use a bit of common sense . Some of the arguments here are so petty .