User talk:Sweetpear2

Sweetpear2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sweetpear2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tom Devine. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. Note that your sole area of interest appears to be promoting Tom Devine, and you previously did the same with your earlier account user:Sweet Pear. What connection do you have with the subject, please? Guy (Help!) 22:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advise why you are blocking edits to this webpage? Other historians such as William Dalrymple have a list of their works and awards and honours on the Wiki website. Thanks.

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your edits are consistently promotional. Do you have some connection to the subject? Guy (Help!) 09:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an academic. I don't see how adding details relating to someone's work achievements is 'promotional' when other Wiki sites do likewise. For instance, Anthony Hopkins' Wiki page states that he is considered to be one of the greatest living actors and that statement is backed up by references about that. Why is there not consistency in this respect or do you have a personal animus towards Devine? I have to say I am perplexed. It would be helpful if you would provide evidence to substantiate your claims that the additions I tried to make were 'promotional'. Thanks.

Here's a list of all the articles you have edited with this account:

Tom Devine

Here's a list of all the articles you edited under your previous account:

Tom Devine

Four years, two accounts, only one article. Ever. Much of the content you added this time was word for word the same as the article that was just deleted for copyright infringement. Long-term copyright infringement. The result of promotional editing by a small number of single-purpose accounts. Including you. So, you're an academic. You are carefully not saying if you are, or are an associate of, Devine. I think we can draw our own conclusions at this point. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Tom Devine.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.(UTC)

The above is because, in addition to your four year campaign of promoting Tom Devine, you also reintroduced copyright material previously introduced by you that was a factor in causing the article to be deleted, and this time has had to be revision deleted by another administrator. In the end you are not here to collaborate in making an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Sweetpear2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The administrator has blocked me without addressing my queries. He/she claims that I have reintroduced copyright material but what is the copyright material in question? The statements I added were backed up with references so how is it a copyright violation? I am not a Wiki expert but I am trying to ensure that the Wiki page in question is an accurate reflection of the career of the individual concerned. I raised comparisons with the Wiki pages of other individuals but the administrator did not address these comparisons. I would appreciate an unblock to continue to try and resolve the situation. Thanks ~~

Decline reason:

Parts of the content you added are word-for-word identical to this. Citing the source wouldn't make it any less of a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2018 (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.

{{unblock reviewed| reason=Sorry, as I mentioned earlier I'm not a Wiki expert so I don't get the point of your link to a conference handbook. Are you saying that the references were not made in the proper style? Thanks {{unblock reviewed| reason=I've just searched the handbook and assume you are referring to the entry on Devine? I assume that the organisers for that conference took the information from Wiki. Can you therefore recommend a way forward? I'm quite happy to make the minor additions I indicated earlier, ie the list of publications, a section which appears on the pages of other authors. Thanks ~~

I checked your contributions as User:Sweetpear2 and as User:Sweet Pear (including the deleted ones). Even if that content indeed was taken from Wikipedia, it wasn't yours, as far as I can tell. You re-using it without crediting the original author still violates copyright. If you own the copyright to that content, you'll need to provide evidence via WP:OTRS. Huon (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]