Jump to content

User talk:Lionhead99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lionhead99 (talk | contribs) at 13:25, 15 November 2013 (→Block evasion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Images without valid licenses

Hi Lionhead99, I removed the two images that you added to the sandstone article because they lacked a valid license and are currently in line for deletion. It's frustrating not to be able to use some of the images that are out these but we have to avoid violation of copyright. Mikenorton (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1aBanksbatrycapebnks0049.JPG shows the same outcrop as the first of the pictures that you uploaded and has a valid license, although the lighting is not quite as impressive. Mikenorton (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Pitchman.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 06:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not continue to upload files missing information on their copyright status. Note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and that the copyright status of all media files uploaded to Wikipedia must be verifiable by others. If you are unsure of the correct copyright template, please refer to the list of image copyright tags. If you would like to experiment with uploading files, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very unfortunate editing on Christianity and astrology

When an article you predominantly wrote was deleted, then incorporating all of its rejected content into another article as a raw indigestible lump is exactly the wrong thing to do, and may get you into trouble on Wikipedia. Why don't you follow my hints in the deletion discussion, and source this material properly to the relevant 19th-century and 20th-century works of mystical speculation, and then add it in suitably cleaned-up form to an article on esoteric Christianity? That would be a positive thing to do -- whereas your material in its current state is simply not very useful to Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if an article has been deleted (without a merge option), then that generally means that its content has received a resounding Wikipedia vote of no-confidence, and it is usually considered to be in rather poor taste (and in some cases a violation of Wikipedia policies) to immediately copy all its content to another article. As I said before, even the first image caption by itself has very big problems, since there is very little evidence that I'm aware of that the whole concept of "Astrological ages" predates 19th-century mystical speculations (certainly no such evidence is presented in the articles Astrological age or Age of Aquarius). When properly-sourced, some of this material could be a useful addition to Wikipedia coverage of esoteric Christianity, but in its current form -- with many things claimed to be "facts" which are in fact simply false -- it is quite useless. Meanwhile, it would be nice if you would actually discuss things, instead of just banging away on the article without offering sufficient explanations or justifications for your actions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Meanwhile, please cease adding links to the Christian_mysticism article. Christianity and Astrology and Esoteric Christianity are not in the least related to that subject and familiarity with the material in the Christian Mysticism article will demonstrate same. The same or similar links have historically been added by contributers not working on or even familiar with the Christian Mysticism project and subsequently removed by the editors-- as they will continue to be viewed viewed as vandalism. Thank you. --cregil (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Christianity

First off, I am not an "admin". Second, I recommended Esoteric Christianity or similar articles as an aspirational goal for you to possibly improve after you had greatly cleaned up your material -- I did not tell you to add it all in a big indigestible lump right now. AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the second part concerning Esoterica is in reference to my previous post regarding "Christian Mysticism," the editors are aware that from some traditions, the words, "Christian Mysticism" evokes a connection to 19th Century Mysticism and the many of that era, who sought to blend occult-type practices with their Christianity. That, however, is not the academic use of the term. The non-academic association of the term has absolutely no relation to the article. Think: Saint Theresa of Avila and contemplative prayer; Not: charlatans and sceances.--cregil (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload media files lacking copyright information, as you did at File:Bfad.jpg, you may be blocked from editing. If you are unsure of the correct copyright template, please refer to the list of image copyright tags or ask at the copyright question page. Eeekster (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to History of chocolate, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced music genres

Several of your recent edits to Katy Perry articles, such as to California Gurls and Teenage Dream (Katy Perry song), added genres which were not sourced within the respective articles. Contrary to your "Gurls" edit summary, we do need references to reliable sources for genres. We don't get to decide a song sounds like, e.g., teen-pop. Thanks, and happy new year. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Leonardo da Vinci, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at I Wanna Go. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nicholas (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Vomiting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thriller (genre), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Doctors and Jurassic Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horror sub-genres

Please read my comments on the Horror film talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Horror film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Romance, Underworld (film), Apollo 18, Dorian Gray (film), Wolf Creek and I Am Legend
Thriller (genre) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Mystery, Surprise, Mission and Escape
Crime film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Heat (film)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set It Off (Timomatic song)

Please cite a reliable source for the genres you added to Set It Off (Timomatic song) as everything on Wikipedia has to be verified. Also the song did not peak at number one on the ARIA Singles Chart. See here. Oz talk 10:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thriller (genre), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thriller-genre.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thriller-genre.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Your addition to Condobolin has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Nswrainfallmap.png

Thanks for uploading File:Nswrainfallmap.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forced image size

Based on this and similar recent edits, I suspect that you are not familiar with WP:IMGSIZE, which says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". There is no good reason to force the image size in Sydney as the image is really only readable when full size; 310px makes the image no more readable than the satndard 220px, so it's best not to force the size at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at South Australia, you may be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
"The Resilient Barnstar is awarded to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never letting mistakes impede their growth as an editor."

Thank you for taking on-board the message I wrote to you, regarding the copy&paste move on the Janoskians article. Not only did you acknowledge this issue, but you also re-wrote the content in question! Again, thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian and Dyke (slang) articles

Hello, Lionhead99. If you have checked the edit history of the Lesbian article before, which I believe that you have, you saw that your edit was reverted before, by Wikiwind, with me elaborating on Wikiwind's revert for why your edit was reverted.[1][2][3][4] What is mostly the same edit has now been reverted by me.[5][6] All of those edit summaries clearly explain why you were reverted. Waiting a month later to restore most of it does not change the issue with your edit. It's not like most people who were watching an article stop watching it a month later and aren't going to notice what is mostly the same change that they objected to before.

As I've stated, the lead isn't saying that being lesbian is a choice; it's saying whether or not to identify as lesbian is a choice; sexual identity is not always the same as sexual orientation, which I explained to a different person in September of this year on the Lesbian talk page (in the "Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men" discussion, where the IP who started that discussion was making the argument that, well, most lesbians have sex with men). Your edits, among other things, removed material that addresses the important ways that the term "lesbian" is used, material that is partly a summary of the Sexuality and lesbian identity section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." As I also stated on the talk page to that person in that September 2012 discussion, partially because "lesbian" is often not consistently defined in the same way by women who use the term to describe their sexuality, it often is not consistently defined in the same way by researchers (see page 22). The Lesbian article is a big article; so it, of course, makes sense that its lead is four paragraphs, which is the advised limit for the lead. Leads may or may not include sources, as what is in the lead should be sourced in the lower body of the article and since sourcing the lead is a case-by-case matter. See Wikipedia:Lead#Citations. And WP:OVERLINKING is not good.

It should also help that Frankfort05 changed the "About"/disambiguation tag to identify that this article is not just about sexual orientation: "This article is about the term Lesbian and female homosexuality. For the sexual orientation in general, see Homosexuality."[7]

I also reverted you at the Dyke (slang) article,[8][9][10] because, "The term is not always pejorative anymore, as the lead notes. 'Dyke' is used very often among gay and bisexual-identified women without negative connotation. 'Sissy' or 'faggot' not as much to the same extent by gay men." Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

image for bird

Hey dude we seem to have a slow mo edit war going on here. Look, go read the talk page. The discussion wasn't 100% against composite images, but there was consensus that it would have to be a good one and the one you keep putting up has a lot of problems. Also, if you do change images on featured articles, please make sure you alter the alt_text as well. Featured articles have to have that text, and you have alternatively removed it or left the one up for the thrush! Ta. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composite image

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nurragingy Reserve.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Nurragingy Reserve.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Stop icon Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions 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. OK - I count about almost 20 deleted images of yours due to copyright violations - now is the time to stop! I would expect the next one found to result in a block  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Western Sydney Regional Park may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:CentralGardens.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CentralGardens.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of same-sex unions

On May 1 you added this to History of same-sex unions:

  1. ^ Ibid, 465
  2. ^ Ibid, 468.

The two citations both use "ibid" which the Manual of Style tells us to avoid, and this is a good example why. There's no way to know what work is being cited. The previous citation is to a journal article with pp. 343-70, so that can't be what these ibids are referring to. On June 10 you added the same citations to Same-sex marriage. And similar citations in LGBT rights by country or territory#Ancient Assyria are equally obscure. Perhaps you remember your source and can help us clean up these citations? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thriller (genre), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Client and The Jury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Matthewpitcham.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Matthewpitcham.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Mosmof (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egypt theory

I have removed the section in the prehostory of australia articles as it fails WP:FRINGE... Additionally the image you uploaded and claimed as fair use doesnt fit Wikipedia's criteria for fair use. Gnangarra 10:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Stop icon Your addition to Batman has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions 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. and other articles. I note your lack of response to any of the copyright issues mentioned above. I am considering an indefinite block and am warning you now while I think about what to do next. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - as you have ignored me, it was this or block you myself, which I will do if you add or replace any more copyvio material as you have now done at 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kariong, New South Wales. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also raised the article at WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kariong, New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Settlement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kariong, New South Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You probably could have been blocked by someone uninvolved before your last reversion, if you continue to revert then it's even more likely you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Nurragingy Reserve, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Land_Biodiversity/Bushland_-_Locations_Bushcare_Groups/Bushland_Reserves/Nurragingy_Reserve, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Nurragingy Reserve saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you wish to resume editing, it may be necessary for you to demonstrate your understanding of these policies and reassure the community of your willingness to comply.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~~~~
After further reviewing your contributions and finding copy-pastes ranging from 2011 to yesterday, I have blocked your account pending your willingness to demonstrate an understanding that you must not copy-paste content from other websites, even with minor modifications, unless you can prove that this material is compatibly licensed and unless you comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You have been previously warned multiple times that continued copy-pasting might lead to a block of your account.
I have found and removed or flagged multiple copy-pastes from your contributions.
Among them, in addition to the one noted above, the content you placed here is published under claim of prior authorship here. Another example of problematic edits is your addition on June 28th of content to History of Australia and Prehistory of Australia. In the latter article, for instance, you inserted the following:
Source Article
The Main Kariong Hieroglyphic site consist of 5 (five) different sections so far, namely the disputed Hieroglyphic site itself, followed by the Underground site, which has since been buried, covering up the Ges, meaning “side” or “half”, which has since been reclassified as meaning side or half chamber. The Main Kariong Hieroglyphic site consist of five different sections so far, namely the disputed Hieroglyphic site itself, followed by the Underground site, which has since been buried.
These glyphs, being Proto-Egyptian, therefore pre-dynastic, being the primitive forerunner of Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian Glyphs, explain their meaning by their picture-value alone, and may be read in modern English as follows. The glyphs, being Proto-Egyptian, therefore pre-dynastic, being the primitive forerunner of Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian Glyphs, explain their meaning by their picture-value alone, and may be read in modern English as follows
To make it easier to see what you have copy-pasted in this content, I have bolded language that is precisely reproduced (although stylistic markings, such as the parentheses around the word "five", may differ).
Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and be sure that you are thoroughly familiar with our copyright policies if you wish to request an unblock.
Please note that copyright concerns are not the only ones raised at ANI. I would also recommend that you review Wikipedia:Fringe, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It is important to help ensure that our articles reflect what reliable sources have to say about subjects in due balance. It is not our role at Wikipedia to further unproven theories that have as yet received little scholarly attention. As a tertiary resource, we will often be behind in such research. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extensiveness of issues that have been discovered, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lionhead99 was opened to coordinate cleanup of any lingering copy-pasted content that has been found. Please note that beyond policies governing copy-pasting from external, copyrighted sources, there are also legal requirements in using content that is compatibly licensed - whether you find it inside or outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Plagiarism explain some of these. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

By editing in defiance of your block, I'm afraid you are only making your situation worse. You should be aware that policy permits deleting everything added by somebody in your position - no matter how long it may be before the sockpuppet is discovered. If you want to edit Wikipedia and not risk the removal of everything you do, you need to negotiate an unblock as described above and stop violating our copyright policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Parklandslogo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parklandslogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lionhead99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason why I have made 'sockpuppets' is because I am certain that I will never win the appeal, as I think the admins are rather strict - I have heard of many people not being approved for their appeal. I just hope that I can edit articles again without being 'caught' and blocked again. To clarify, this was MY ONLY account until the June block, where I made new account afterwards, one being Handfish. It got blocked because I was obviously a sockpuppet of Lionhead99 (my main account, which was blocked).

I understand that adding copyright content breaches the rules, so I will NOT ever add copyrighted content, but I think I can shorten, summarize them and provide sources for them -- The new edits I made on the copyright articles (Central Gardens Nature Reserve, Western Sydney Parklands, Auburn Botanical Gardens) were put into my own style of words though STILL inspired by the source, but then they were reverted because the editor was a 'serial copyrightist' (surely not all Wikipedia articles should be original research). I hope they can also be accepted on my second time editing - I'd love to work on them -- Of course first, if, my account is unblocked.

And if I'm not unblocked, can I, by your permission, make another account? Or am I forever banished from Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

you would stand more chance of achieving an unblock if you gave some indication that you understood the basic policies operated here. Creating sockpuppets to evade a block is cause for an immediate block; making minimal changes to copyrighted articles remains a copyright breach; NO Wikipedia articles are original research; and as a block specifically affects the person, not the account, creating a new account while blocked is by definition block evasion and any such accounts can be immediately blocked. You are blocked for breach of copyright; to achieve unblock you need to demonstrate to us that you fully understand copyright restrictions here, which you have so far failed to do.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lionhead, yesterday you added the following to Wikipedia with an IP:
In 1995, Council staff recognised the importance of this bushland and built a fence around the plot to prevent vehicle access.
We find this here"
In 1995, Council staff recognised the importance of this bushland and built a fence around the plot to prevent vehicle access.
This is not your words. Beyond this instance of precise duplication (and there may be others), there are still passages too closely paraphrased - I found out about your last attempt at block evasion when an editor came by my page to ask if the sources were under copyright because he had noticed copy-pasting in your edit. Personally, I would love to have you editing constructively...these articles could use improvement. But you still don't seem to understand what our copyright policies are. It is not a choice between using "original research" and copy-pasting. It's a matter of using judicious summary of what sources say (which is not original resource), coupled with limited and functional quotations.
I would strongly recommend that you read and understand Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I'm happy to talk to you about these approaches further, but until this fundamental difference in approach is resolved, I don't see how you can contribute constructively within our policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I won't win the unblock appeal. I've seen people constantly re-appealing, but to no avail. So I will rest my case.
About those articles, I would still be very content if I were allowed to summarize them in my own words (as you said). I have time to go through the articles and would try changing the words and the sentence structure as much as I can.
What I did, admittedly, was copy & paste the content - cut out the irrelevant bits, change some words and, yes, at times I'm not bothered to do it for the rest. Hence why some bits are detected as 'copyrighted', but I don't know why the whole article has to be reverted.
Anyway, I'm still happy to summarize the articles which are now stubs (Auburn Botanical Gardens, Western Sydney Parklands and Central Gardens Nature Reserve) into my own words though still basing them on their source and have your supervision (or any admin). If I cross the line I'd acknowledge your correction, but not to the extent where it's wholly revert as I'm sure some of the content there were my summarized words.
Since I'm 'indefinitely' blocked, can you do something with those little articles? "Auburn" is good, even though I preferred my edit of it, but "Western" and "Central" seem awfully short. I just hope that somebody extends them somehow, some way. I'd appreciate it if you, in your time, add some content basing it on my sources. --Lionhead99 11:28PM, 19 September 2013 (AEDT)
I'm afraid that we don't have capacity to check through to see what is in your own words and what isn't and remove the copy-pasted content. We've got a tremendous backlog of copyright work, and while we try to salvage articles often we have no choice but to reduce the content in them pretty extremely in the hopes that somebody can come back later and build on them with content we can keep.
I would prefer that you not be blocked. If you believe you can contribute without the copy-pasting, you could demonstrate that here. I'd recommend you propose your additions below with a full list of all sources you referred to. (I would not suggest going back to previous content you added, since you might accidentally wind up copying content again, and that would be a shame.) I'd be happy to look at those sources and look at the text and help you work through any problematic areas. I would really recommend you take a very conservative approach to using content. I wouldn't copy anything that is not marked clearly as a quotation mark. We have to be able to trust that you will continue to contribute usable content without this close scrutiny, and it's much better if you don't push the line there. Close paraphrasing can prevent the return of your editing privileges. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your humanity. Thank you for giving me a small chance at this. Despite the block I'm still glad that we can work this out all here.
Without going any further at this, I need your confirmation just in case -- So I will add some of my paraphrases in here (this talk box) and the sources, in which you will personally skim through them and add their content onto those mentioned articles? Is that the plan? --Lionhead99, 20 September 2013
Yes, if they are okay, with attribution to you. And if you can do this successfully with substantial content for enough articles that I can confidently say that I believe you can properly summarize sources, I will gladly support your unblock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but an honest warning; I can't guarantee that some of the paraphrases will be entirely different to their source - so please help me out (it's just that paraphrasing can be difficult and time consuming, but I'll TRY my best). Though I'm still confident that the wordings are NOT 'word-for-word'. Here it goes:
proposed additions of text
    • ==History the Parklands==

"Western Sydney Parklands is a place for people of all backgrounds to meet, celebrate, play and appreciate the environment. The Parklands will be the venue for communities to create and manage a new sustainable future on the Cumberland Plain."

The Western Sydney Parklands Plan of Management (PoM) 2020[3]

The Parkland was an area of specialty for the Darug people and it is still deemed as important by the Aboriginal Land Council.[4]

The Parkland has been visited by some early settlers, such as Edward Abbott and George Johnson. The Park was originally used for agricultural purposes which included gardening, dairy farming and grazing. The early settlement in the Parklands took place in Prospect in the 1790s. The Parklands were planned in 1968, as Western Sydney needed open space and recreational areas.[5]

    • ==Flora and Fauna==

The Parkland's environment has remained very similar to how it was prior European contact. The park consists of 135 hectares of woodland, with the majority comprising 427 hectares of planted vegetation and cleared grassland areas. Until recently, the NSW Government has re-vegetated the area through the Greening Western Sydney Program. The Parkland's revegetation has been going since the early 1990s.

The Park contains threatened and endangered species which are protected under State and Commonwealth legislation. Wildlife in the parks includes many native species of frogs, birds, lizards and bats. Foxes and rabbits are rare, but not unheard of.[6] Around eighty native vertebrate species exist within the parkland. A search by Wildlife Atlas returned the identification of 167 vertebrate fauna species within the Park.[7] One group of birds that is present all year round are the parrots. Many breed in the Parklands' trees are found, such as rainbow lorikeets, rosellas, red-rumped parrots, galahs and cockatoos.[8][9]

    • ==Features==
Looking over the Parkland, from Calmsley Hill Farm in Abbotsbury.

On the hilly ridgeline that goes through the centre of the Park, there are lookout areas with scenic values which provide panoramic views of the Sydney skyline. The ridgeline is located in Abbotsbury and Cecil Hills. The elevated areas have an altitudes ranging from 130 to 140 metres (430 to 460 ft) above sea level.

Most of the areas within the park are leased for a variety of uses including agriculture, waste management, motor sports and rural/residential purposes.[10] The main heritage sites include the Prospect Reservoir, Upper Canal, The Rooty Hill, Bungarribee Farm Homestead complex archaeological site and Eastern Creek.[11]

The recreational facilities within in the Parklands include: Blacktown Olympic Park, Eastern Creek International Raceway, Western Sydney International Dragway, Sydney International Shooting Centre and the Sydney International Equestrian Centre, which all provided venues for the 2000 Olympic Games. Calmsley Hill Farm (previously known as Fairfield City Farm) is a children’s education farm. The farm demonstrates agriculture and environmental education, allowing visitors to experience farming practices. The farm has around 65,000 school visits every year.

The Parklands have market gardens, former military places, reservoirs and service infrastructure. There are a number of easements within the park for the surrounding suburbs including Jemena (gas), Sydney Water, Transgrid (powerlines) and Integral Energy (powerlines).[12] ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The architectural features of the environment are based on the surrounding themes of the area. The topography of the site, which slopes gently towards the Duck River, has been altered to create different perspectives and microclimates. Three habitats are intended to provide an experience of 'Australia' in the city – the woodlands theatre, the native garden and billabong, and the Australian rainforest.[13] The design of the Gardens were done by engineer and Town Planner, Eric Black. The designs started from 1949 to 1979. [14]

    • ==History== - (I'm content with your edit, but it needs the 'construction' info) Construction work began in 1969, which involved the quarry of the Japanese Gardens Lake. On 9 September 1973, over a hundred of trees were planted on the site.
    • ==Vegetation== -

The flora was chosen for its horticultural value and is representative of the natural vegetation of the region. The vegetation include a mix of indigenous native flora, ornamental flora, weed infestations, introduced lawn grasses and areas of both native and exotic plants. The gardens have been identified as part of the recovery plan for certain environments and species, including Cooks River clay plain scrub forest, Acacia pubescens (downy wattle) and Wahlenbergia multicaulis (Tadgell's bluebell).

    • ==Attractions== - Japanese garden:
The entrance to the zen gardens.

Because of its picturesque setting, the Japanese garden is popular for wedding ceremonies and photoshoots. This area has the traditional Japanese style landscaping which include a waterfall, decorative bridges, ornamental trees and bonsai plantings set around a large lake (which features a foreshore). The cherry blossom trees fully bloom in August and September.

This attraction is entered through a roof gate and the brick paving leads past the Zen Garden with its symbolic mountains, waterfalls and landscaping. On the entrance there is a massive cone of white sand. The view at the Moon Gate entices the visitor into the enclosed section of the Garden and to the lake worshipping stone at the western edge of the lake. The basic components of the Japanese garden is the central island, the bridges, the Ryoan-ji style garden, the pines and the Azaleas.

    • ===Native and Rainforest Garden===

The Rainforest garden features many native plants (to Australia) and trees set around a shady billabong bordered by scrub woodland plantings and grassy areas. This area contains animals such as peacocks, swans and other native birds that wander around freely, adding to the different themes of the Botanic Gardens. In the forest, there is a thick canopy of foliage with a lot of vegetation, which produces wet, littered leaves and a overly mouldy floor. The forest's structural form consists of an open-forest to low woodland, though generally with a shrubby understorey.

    • ===Scented garden===

The Scented Garden contains Frangipani, Lavender and Sage. Nearby, there is a 'Reflection Pool', which is surrounded by pine trees. The pool is at its most visual appeal in March–May (autumn) At the centre of this section is the 'Undercover Wedding Pavilion', which is generally used for wedding ceremonies.

The reflection pool.- (PLEASE PUT IN GALLERY SECTION)
    • ===Sunken Rose Garden===

The Rose Garden contains arches of David Austin Roses which have a variety of colours and fragrances. It blooms in mid October and January (spring-summer). A large variety of bushes and climbers form the rose gardens include, floribunda, grandiflora, petunias and garden roses.

    • ===Fauna reserve===

Opened in 1994, the Fauna Reserve is home to flora and fauna that was indigenous to the Auburn area before it was developed. There are many animals in this reserve, including Swamp Wallabies, Red Necked Wallabies, Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Emus, Rufous Bettong and the Common Wombat. The Fauna Reserve allows the visitors to walk through and view native animals within their own environment. The aviary was officially opened on 5 December 1988 by the Hon Gary West. It is home to Australian and Asian birds.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    • ==Vegetation==

Eucalypts and shrubs such as Hebe and Abelia were planted when the gardens were constructed.[16] The gardens contains 1.5 hectares of Grey Box Woodland including understory species such as Bursaria spinosa and herbs including Lomandra filiformis and Themeda australis. The garden also contains Grey Box trees, which are mainly seen near the picnic and parking area.[17]

    • ==Features==

The ornamental lake is a major feature of the reserve. There is also a man-made pond featuring a mini scenic waterfall, boardwalk bridges and a kiosk. The Garden is an ideal area for feeding and watching ducks, barbecuing, marriage, Christmas parties and for school excursions. The animals in the fauna reserve include, kangaroos, wallabies, emus, wombats and native birds (including a talking cockatoo and cockatiels). In the pond, there are carp and ducks. [18]

  1. ^ HASSELL (2010a) Stage One Report, Context and Analysis, Western Sydney Parklands Plan of Management.
  2. ^ http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/b9c7c3b89e6e3fcbca256a71001d5611/$FILE/b01-074-p03.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.westernsydneyparklands.com.au/resources/613
  4. ^ RTA (2008) The Western Sydney Regional Aboriginal Heritage Study. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change
  5. ^ HASSELL (2010b) Draft Western Sydney Parklands Plan of Management 2010–2020.
  6. ^ DECC (2006) A Vertebrate Fauna Survey of Western Sydney Regional Park. Unpublished report. NPWS, Parramatta.
  7. ^ NSW NPWS (2002) Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain - Final Edition. NPWS, Sydney.
  8. ^ http://www.westernsydneyparklands.com.au/page/about-us/environmental/parklands-wildlife/
  9. ^ DECCW (2010) website as accessed 21 July 1010 - http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/home_species.aspx
  10. ^ Ecological (2008) Biodiversity Restoration Strategy Western Sydney Parklands. NSW Department of Planning.
  11. ^ NSW (2006) Western Sydney Regional Park Statement of Interim Management Intent. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Cumberland South.
  12. ^ WSPT (2009) Western Sydney Parklands Bush Fire Management Strategy and Implementation Program. WPST, Parramatta.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Perrin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Auburn Council, Auburn Botanic Gardens: plan of management, Auburn Council, Auburn, New South Wales, 2001
  15. ^ http://www.holroyd.nsw.gov.au/your-city/roads-parks-pools/parks/central-gardens-2/
  16. ^ http://www.uprct.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/publications/greencorridors/GreenCorr/Report/Part%205/5-6.htm
  17. ^ http://www.uprct.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/publications/greener_corridors/Central_Gardens.pdf
  18. ^ http://www.uprct.nsw.gov.au/PDF/Field%20Trips/8%20Central%20Gardens.pdf

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I tried my hardest to paraphrase the content. Though still basing it on my first attempts, I did heavy paraphrasing (again, as I said, a good dose of my wordings were NOT word-for-word, originally). Pleas try comparing my above attempt on the source and external links (on the article page) and see if I infringed copyrights. Let me know and I will gladly work on it again (I spend hours on the above, removing, adding and paraphrasing the words). I'm certain that I done well, or at least better, this time. --Lionhead99, 21 September 2013, 4:05pm (AEDT)

I'm not here to trick you into revealing an error - if I see what I regard as close paraphrasing, we'll talk about why it could be an issue and how it could be handled differently. My hope is that we can come to a mutual understanding of how source material should be handled so that you can get back to work. :) In circumstances like yours, I strongly recommend being very conservative with copyright. Once an editor has established a history of issues, scrutiny for future issues can be pretty high and attitudes towards them fairly unforgiving. (The reason for this is practical, not personal - processes like WP:CCI take a ton of community resources. While reviewing for copyright issues, editors aren't work on other things, and admins really need to be careful not to force the community to do more of this than necessary.)

Review

I will start looking at these. It's going to take a while to go through them - possibly a couple of days, given family obligations. It's slow work, comparing text to sources, as it requires close reading of both and also since you didn't write from scratch and list your sources here doing a scan of visible sources online. It's not recommended that you base your writing on what you previously had, as I mentioned above. But we'll see how it goes. I'll start with the last one on the list, because it should be quickest and may help us see if there are issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started looking through the bottom article, but can't find any of the information you added to the lead at the link: [11]. Am I overlooking something? Can you point out to me where on the page that information is sourced? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from scratch is just an intense work - I already strained myself with the above work. But I know that I did much better this time with the strong paraphrasing. I'm glad that you're taking your time to work on them.
To answer your second paragraph (about the link), I believe I used these sources for the lede (apologies for not including them, I guess I was mentally strained at that point...LOL): [12] and [13]. --Lionhead99, 22 September 2013, 2:07pm (AEDT)
Lionhead99, I can only do this if - as I said above - you give me "a full list of all sources you referred to." This is the offer I made and what I can do for you. If you don't remember because you didn't do this from scratch, then I don't see how I can review them. :(
Beyond that, when I look at the next section's first source, in relevant portion, I see:
"In 1976, the parkland was constructed and non-indigenous eucalypts and shrubs such as Hebe and Abelia were planted."
Looking at what you wrote, I see
"In its construction, non-indigenous eucalypts and shrubs such as Hebe and Abelia were planted."
I've bolded what is taken verbatim from the source.
Is this how you would have written this, if you were paraphrasing from scratch?
Looking at the next run of text, I see the following:
"The gardens contains 1.5 hectares of Grey Box Woodland including understory species such as Bursaria spinosa and herbs including Lomandra filiformis and Themeda australis. Some Grey Box trees are still present at the picnic area and car park.", sourced to "Green Corridors: Finlayson". The only use of the word "picnic" that I find on that page is this: "Facilities: Toilets, picnic shelters, parking, kiosk, playground." The only use of the word "Grey Box" I find is in a colored box with a list of common native species in the park. There's nothing in the source that says where Grey Box trees are and where they aren't. The only reference to 1.5 hectares I find in that source is this: "2 hectares, plus works on isolated remnant tree groups of 1.5 hectares." So the second source doesn't seem to be what you used to support either sentence.
In fact, it isn't. The first source supports this information, and it supports nearly verbatim.
Source text Article text
Central Gardens contains 1.5 hectares of Grey Box Woodland including understory species such as Bursaria spinosa and native species of grasses and herbs including Lomandra filiformis and Themeda australis The gardens contains 1.5 hectares of Grey Box Woodland including understory species such as Bursaria spinosa and herbs including Lomandra filiformis and Themeda australis.
Some Grey Box trees still occur at the picnic area and car park at the northern end of the reserve. Some Grey Box trees are still present at the picnic area and car park.
I've bolded to indicate where you used the precise language of the source. In the first instance, you changed nothing, although you removed a run of words. In the second instance, you turned "still occur" into "are still present" - the removal of one word and addition of two.
I understand that it is taxing, but there's no rush. You can take your time. But I can't help you this way. I need to know what you looked as your reference for everything you propose to add if I am to determine if the material is okay. If you want to improve these articles, you need to write your proposed material from scratch as suggested and using a process such as that described at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to avoid taking content (as opposed to information) from your sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the sources, I thought I already provided them? You can see the reference list up there if I'm not mistaken. And thank you for analyzing the articles. :)
Again, I did say I can't guarantee that all of the words will be completely different from their source during the paraphrasing. The paraphrasing examples I saw above were one of the few ones I believe were the 'closest'. I'm sure the rest of the content isn't close or close enough, and that the wordings are distinct from the sources.
Starting from scratch is an incredible task - especially when it's for three articles. I can't imagine going through and through the sources again (as I did back then), writing this, writing that and then being told that one sentence is mistakenly copyrighted, so the whole thing will not be accepted yet again (if I strain away too much from the sources then they will be tagged as "original research" - that happened to me a couple of times). So I can't risk doing this. I apologize.--Lionhead99, 22 September 2013, 11:25pm (AEDT)
I am having to guess which source is used for which sentence - this should be obvious. When you site a source for a paragraph and none of the information in that paragraph comes from that source, it's not. :/ As you can see above, modifying what you tried to place once before is not working. I've halted the review until this is worked out. I'm willing to meet you midway, but I'm not willing to review the sources myself to make sure that you have properly paraphrased if you are not reviewing them and if you are not identifying specifically which sources you have used for what content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are the only sources available I'm afraid. I do not have any more. What I done NOW is rightfully place the sources near the related sentences (some were all over the place) and re-paraphrasing more content (namely the "Grey Box" and "eucalyptus" sentences, as they were deemed to close). Besides starting from scratch, I can do more paraphrasing even though I'm confident and positive enough that I've changed a great deal of words and sentences. --Lionhead99, 23 September 2013, 13:06 (AEDT)
Hello Moonriddengirl, can I have a resolution on this or were you not available in the past week? Is there anything else that I could do? I really would love to see a change or expansion in the above articles. Anyhow, there was a section in an article that needed expanding (it was reverted for copyright when I did it -- it was longer though). At the "Ancient Israel and West Asia" section on the LGBT rights by country or territory I provided this piece of wording, which was revised and paraphrased a lot of times, but you reverted it (which was understandable I believe, because I was a sockpuppet the third time submitting it). Can it be accepted this time? (it is the more revised and paraphrased version) Here it is: --Lionhead99, 29 September 2013, 23:15 (AEDT)
proposed additions of text

In ancient Assyria (modern day Iraq), homosexuality was not prohibited and was commonly present. Assyrians had religious writings containing prayers for divine blessing on homosexual relationships.[1] [2]They also had prayers favoring equality of love between a man and a woman, as with a man and a man.[3] Law codes stated that males can penetrate other males of equal status or if they were cult prostitutes, as it was thought that trouble will leave them and have good fortune.[4] However, if false rumors or forced sex were involved the perpetrators would "be turned into a eunuch" as prescribed in the laws[5].

  1. ^ Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian's Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry, by Mike Mazzalonga, 1996, p.11
  2. ^ The Nature Of Homosexuality, Erik Holland, page 334, 2004
  3. ^ Pritchard, p. 181.
  4. ^ Nissinen, p. 27
  5. ^ The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

Invitation

There is a backstage pass coming up to be followed by an editathon in the State Library of New South Wales on 23 November. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a special opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you can participate either online or in person with other Wikipedians. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Sydney.

Block evasion

Your IP has been blocked again. You are not welcome to edit here, User:Lionhead99, until and unless you negotiate the unblock of your account. While I was willing to work with you, your refusal to rewrite the content from scratch and clearly identify what sources you used for what content just made that impossible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to work with me? I'm sorry, but you neglected my recent posts. You just stopped replying. I told you, I am confident that this work was paraphrased (count that as a 'rewrite' - it was practically that). It took me hours to write down the 'proposed additions' (above). About the unblocking, you know that they will never unblock me. So what, now, I banish myself from Wikipedia? It's almost two months and I thought the heavy restriction against me has died down, but to no avail, my content is still deemed as 'copyright'. And even when I'm adding other stuff (celebrity info), nope, I'm still inhumanly reverted (thanks to Flyer) and now I'm blocked again. Again, Wikipedia rarely listens (I read how strict they are). If I continue appealing, I hear, they will make it stricter. --Lionhead99, 15 November 2013, 23:15 (AEDT)
Can I please get a reply? --Lionhead99, 15 November 2013, 23:40 (AEDT)
I did stop replying; I told you when we started talking that "I'm afraid that we don't have capacity to check through to see what is in your own words and what isn't and remove the copy-pasted content" and offered to review your content if you proposed your additions with a full list of all sources used for review. I also wrote that "I would not suggest going back to previous content you added", but that was the approach you chose - modifying what you had already done. After several rounds of finding copied content and material that was not directly sourced, I could no longer afford to invest the time in the approach I had already told you we didn't have capacity to take. There's a lot of work to do here.
Your block is indefinite - it will not ever die down. The only way to return to editing privileges without the risk that everything you add will be reverted on discovery is to convince us that you will take due diligence with your content to make sure that it fully complies with our policies, especially the copyright policy.
One potential approach here is what is referred to as the standard offer, particularly with the following: "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF-projects prior to requesting an en:return per this 'offer' as many unban-requests have been declined due to the banned user simply 'waiting' the six months out." If you can demonstrate that you have added content to another project that is not copied or closely paraphrased from your sources, it will be a lot easier to trust that content you add here will be policy compliant as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only approach - basing it on my previous content. How can I start anew and not base it on anything? I thought Wikipedia is based on sources, no? Please, your 'start from scratch' approach is rather complex. You're asking me to 'work blind'. Look through those modified articles again, like the administrator you are, and you will not see copyright. Oh, please revert Wentworth Miller's addition to my edit or at least re-add his info yourself (Gay men in American history). It was very unnecessary of you to go to my other edits, reverting them, when they didn't play a part with my copyright issues at all and were rather crucial, contributing information in nature. --Lionhead99, 15 November 2013, 23:56 (AEDT)
You are a blocked editor. You are not welcome to edit until you are unblocked, in any article on any subject. Any edit you make may be reverted as soon as it is discovered.
Starting from scratch may be complex, but it's the right approach. The burden is not on others to find and fix the problems that you created. It is on you. If you don't care to take the time to do this, you should not expect others to invest the time themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If my IP isn't blocked then how am I a blocked editor? Shouldn't my IP be indefinitely blocked so I can be called a block editor? I believe I have the rights to edit when there isn't a block on my IP. It seems like every time I edit on this IP, even when I don't add copyright info, I'm reverted (if not blocked). If you don't ever want to me to edit and don't want me welcomed, block my IP address forever. 'Lionhead99' is a dead, blocked user now, as you said, so why can't I have the rights to edit under my IP address rather (after three months, when you haven't blocked it indefinitely)?
Anyway, about starting from scratch, I still have a feeling that you won't trust me on it. You don't have to invest your time in it. I just want you trust me that this work I made is all paraphrased. I know, it's hard trust someone over the internet. --Lionhead99, 16 November 2013, 00:20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lionhead99&oldid=581767848"