Revision as of 16:02, 24 September 2012 editDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,356 edits →2 problems with your work: decline unblock← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:29, 24 September 2012 edit undoNoodleki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,947 edits →2 problems with your workNext edit → | ||
Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=This is absurd and I am extremely upset at the way I am being treated. Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website, secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway! The advertising article is also from another wiki article yet you claim without basis it comes from somewhere else; I said before I'm happy to put in an attribution to the editor on that page. You then mention I have violated copyright before. I was not aware of the stringent rules wikipedia appears to have adopted, I have been doing this for some time now with no problems ever coming up - if it has now been deemed as problematic then I will happily desist from doing so in the future, however all I am trying to do at the moment, is to supplement existing articles with relevant material from other wikipedia pages which is allowed (with attribution). Why do you not give me the benefit of the doubt?] (]) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | decline=There are so many things wrong with your logic that I don't have to review your edits. "''Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website ...''" That alone wouldn't have been a problem, although we do prefer editors to be more careful. "''... secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway.''" Yes there is. Previously copyrighted material does not lose its copyright by virtue of being included, with or without permission, in other copyrighted material. We have had policies on ] for a very long time ... feel free to read them at your leisure. The fact that no one had complained about this before does ''not'' make it any less problematic, as copyright is not just a policy but one we are required to have due to the existence of actual laws outside of Misplaced Pages in the real world. And ] ] does not apply here. None of this would matter, however, if you hadn't taken such a combative tone. That, more than anything else, tells us you won't work well with other editors. — ] (]) 16:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed | 1=This is absurd and I am extremely upset at the way I am being treated. Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website, secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway! The advertising article is also from another wiki article yet you claim without basis it comes from somewhere else; I said before I'm happy to put in an attribution to the editor on that page. You then mention I have violated copyright before. I was not aware of the stringent rules wikipedia appears to have adopted, I have been doing this for some time now with no problems ever coming up - if it has now been deemed as problematic then I will happily desist from doing so in the future, however all I am trying to do at the moment, is to supplement existing articles with relevant material from other wikipedia pages which is allowed (with attribution). Why do you not give me the benefit of the doubt?] (]) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | decline=There are so many things wrong with your logic that I don't have to review your edits. "''Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website ...''" That alone wouldn't have been a problem, although we do prefer editors to be more careful. "''... secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway.''" Yes there is. Previously copyrighted material does not lose its copyright by virtue of being included, with or without permission, in other copyrighted material. We have had policies on ] for a very long time ... feel free to read them at your leisure. The fact that no one had complained about this before does ''not'' make it any less problematic, as copyright is not just a policy but one we are required to have due to the existence of actual laws outside of Misplaced Pages in the real world. And ] ] does not apply here. None of this would matter, however, if you hadn't taken such a combative tone. That, more than anything else, tells us you won't work well with other editors. — ] (]) 16:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)}} | ||
{{unblock|reason=I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the ''external source'' is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". ] (]) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 16:29, 24 September 2012
Welcome!
Hello, Noodleki, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wafflepwn.com, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Wafflepwn.com
A tag has been placed on Wafflepwn.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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. 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Greatest freak out ever
You just deleted this page, after it was nominated for deletion a week ago. That's fine, but I think I'm at least entitled to an explanation given the work that I put into it. The reason given, was lack of notability, yet I referenced many reliable sources that write on the subject, including dailykos, huffington post, know your meme, giantbomb and others. How does that not establish notability. Specifically, could you point me to the section of the wiki guidelines that justify its deletion. ThankyouNoodleki (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." - direct quote. That's exactly what happened here.Noodleki (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am happy that my closure reflected the consensus of the discussion and you are welcome to list at WP:DRV if you disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." - direct quote. That's exactly what happened here.Noodleki (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
More information needed about File:Arthur Keith.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Arthur Keith.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Misplaced Pages.
Please click here and do the following:
- Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
- Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.
If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.
Thank you for your contribution!Template:Z135 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:John Graunt.gif
Thank you for uploading File:John Graunt.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Max Perutz.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Max Perutz.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:John Bowlby.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:John Bowlby.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Spearman.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Spearman.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Maynardsmith.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Maynardsmith.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did with File:Maynardsmith.jpg. Please note that Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Donald Winnicott.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Donald Winnicott.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
More information needed about File:Gunter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gunter.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Misplaced Pages.
Please click here and do the following:
- Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
- Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.
If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.
Thank you for your contribution!Template:Z135 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
More information needed about File:Georgegreen.jpg
Hello, Noodleki!
It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Georgegreen.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.
If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.
Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced changes
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Dennis Ritchie. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Your recent editing history at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. When you recently edited John Cabot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII (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) 10:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
April 22 2012 - Citation of Dr. Hooke's 1684 work in the Heliograph Article
You added "Robert Hooke invented a rudimentary heliograph in 1684." to the Heliograph article, but I think Dr. Hooke's 1684 contribution was a semaphore, not a heliograph, for the reasons I present below.
If you agree, will you please revert your edit? And if not, reply on my Talk page? Thanks!
Hooke's distance signaling method of 1684 was not a heliograph system, because it did not use the reflection of sun off of mirrors.
Hooke's 1684 method used large wooden letters by day (, page 149, Figure 2) and patterns of light by night (, page 150).
Hooke's system was thus a semaphore system rather than a heliograph, and has been properly credited as such in the history section of the Semaphore line article in Misplaced Pages.
I did read through the entirety of Hooke's original presentation of May 21, 1684 , and see no mention nor discussion of mirrors. If I simply overlooked the relevant text, please point me to it. Macchess (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"Dr. Hook's Discourse to the Royal Society, May 21, 1684, showing a way how to communicate on's Mind at great Distances" in Philosophical experiments and observations of the late eminent Dr. Robert Hooke, S.R.S. and Geom. Prof. Gresh., and other eminent virtuoso's in his time, William Derham, 1726, pages 142-150. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWhYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA142&dq=hook
- Per your reply on my Talk Page, and after checking two other works specializing in the history of telecommunications (below), I have removed the reference to Hooke in the Heliograph article - Thanks!Macchess (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Communications: An International History of the Formative Years" Volume 32 of History of Technology Series, Author R. W. Burns, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?id=7eUUy8-VvwoC&pg=PA29&dq=hooke+1684+semaphore Military Communications: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century, By Christopher H. Sterling 2008, page 377, bottom of column 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=RBC2nY1rp5MC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=hooke+semaphore+1684
September 2012
Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Misplaced Pages, like you did at 1913. Such attempts to avoid detection, or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jimmy Savile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Your addition to Advertising has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages 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 article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Apparition /Mistakes 13:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2 problems with your work
The first is that I'm finding copyright violations and the second is where you are cutting and pasting sections of other articles without attribution. For example, you did not write this, you have copyvios here and this is also a cut & paste move. There is a copyright on this page that you copied text from. Stop copying at all please.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You have copied text verbatim from this website which is copyright Karina Wilson. Restoring it was a mistake especially when one considers the difficulties you've had in this area.
With regards to copying text within Misplaced Pages, you would need to read Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages to understand that what you are doing is wrong. You did not write it so that falls back as plagiarism on your head when you fall to attribute it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Noodleki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I restored the text that was taken from the article on Pears Company not the text from the website. It would be nice if you weren't so irresponsible and had actually bothered to check what I had done instead of blocking me for copyright violation which I didn't do. With regards to attribution I can add in a hyperlink if that makes you happy. In the meantime can you unblock me. An apology would be nice as well.Noodleki (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is from here. While the most recent additions to Advertising may have been copied from a Misplaced Pages article, that was unquestionably taken from another site, and you still have other edits to the advertising article which are copyvios. Hersfold 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Noodleki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is absurd and I am extremely upset at the way I am being treated. Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website, secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway! The advertising article is also from another wiki article yet you claim without basis it comes from somewhere else; I said before I'm happy to put in an attribution to the editor on that page. You then mention I have violated copyright before. I was not aware of the stringent rules wikipedia appears to have adopted, I have been doing this for some time now with no problems ever coming up - if it has now been deemed as problematic then I will happily desist from doing so in the future, however all I am trying to do at the moment, is to supplement existing articles with relevant material from other wikipedia pages which is allowed (with attribution). Why do you not give me the benefit of the doubt?Noodleki (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There are so many things wrong with your logic that I don't have to review your edits. "Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website ..." That alone wouldn't have been a problem, although we do prefer editors to be more careful. "... secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway." Yes there is. Previously copyrighted material does not lose its copyright by virtue of being included, with or without permission, in other copyrighted material. We have had policies on copying within Misplaced Pages for a very long time ... feel free to read them at your leisure. The fact that no one had complained about this before does not make it any less problematic, as copyright is not just a policy but one we are required to have due to the existence of actual laws outside of Misplaced Pages in the real world. And laches estoppel does not apply here. None of this would matter, however, if you hadn't taken such a combative tone. That, more than anything else, tells us you won't work well with other editors. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Noodleki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the external source is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". Noodleki (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)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=I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the ''external source'' is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". ] (]) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |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=I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the ''external source'' is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". ] (]) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |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=I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the ''external source'' is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". ] (]) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}