I have read and understood the copyright policy and I am willing to abide by the Wikipedia rules in the future. As you have noted below, this is a learning process. However, I do not believe that it is acceptable for an editor to personally attack a user by saying such derogatory comments in public:
* I'm beginning to think this is literally the dumbest person I've seen this year. Could you plug his orifice, please? HalfShadow 06:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This was actually your response to that derogatory comment:
*I've blocked him indefinitely. He is required now to state a clear understanding of copyright policy before being allowed back in the door. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
What if I do have a learning disability? Do you honestly think that it is okay for your colleagues to humiliate an individual in the public? The fact that you never took the chance to correct his inappropriate comment demonstrates to me that you are all acknowledging what he said in that statement above. Although, you mentioned below that "Wikipedia is not an anarchy." That is unprofessional, unjustifiable, unacceptable, and shameful to the entire Wikipedia community.
Thank you.(Silkyaqua123 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)).
Silkyaqua123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Cactus Writer:
(We are new to this and we need to create an article for the artist, Barry Southgate. Only way to get valid information is to get information directly from his biography page (www.barrysouthgate.com/bio). We have listed his website as a reference and we have given his site all the credit yet, we are being deleted by many administrators----we are really confused. We acknowledge that we have read the policy on copyright and we will abide by the rules. If you could simply explain what else we need to do in order to remove that block, we would really appreciate it. Could you please help us properly edit the information that we have compiled so far, so that it is according to the standard of the website. Perhaps you can just high light the areas that needs to be revised and we will definitely change the wording. Thank you so much. :)
--Copyvio removed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Silkyaqua123 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Let's back up a bit. There are two separate but related problems with your edits. The first is the article itself - we simply cannot use text from other websites, even if you give credit to the original source. See our policy here. If the only source for information about the subject is the subject's own webpage, then it is possible that the subject is not Notable under our policies, and the article would be deleted on that basis even without the copyright violation. You must have Reliable Sources independent of the subject in order for an article to be viable. The second issue is with your account. None of your edits to Talk:Barry Southgate, nor your posts here, indicate that you understand that your edits violate our policies, and so unblocking your account would be impossible. Further, you use the plural "We" above, which seems to imply that this account is used by multiple individuals - also a violation of policy. To be unblocked, admins will need to be assured that you understand our policies - then we can discuss how best to edit within them. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:17, 27 April 2011 (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.
Note also that I removed the text of the article from this page. Please be advised that any further attempt to post the text of the deleted Barry Southgate to this talk page may result in the removal of your ability to edit this talk page. Let it stand that you cannot use that text, in any form, and we can move from there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Voluntary Editors and Administrators. Thank you for your professionalism.
Behavior that is unacceptable
Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.
* No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
o No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
Please see below:
* I'm beginning to think this is literally the dumbest person I've seen this year. Could you plug his orifice, please? HalfShadow 06:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You all set a great example of being editors with integrity thus you all bring great honor to Wikipedia and its community. Cactus: You should be very proud of all your friends who are extremely civilized editors. Thank you very much! Silkyaqua123 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Silkyaqua123, you are not doing yourself any favors here. We understand that there can be a steep learning curve to understanding Wikipedia policies -- it does take time to learn them -- but hundreds of thousands of other editors are able to work within the guidelines without creating such a problem. First, you were blocked because you persisted in creating the same copyright violation article over and over -- each time, ignoring the explanations and advice from editors like HalfShadow and others. Copyright violations are taken very seriously because they endanger the entire Wikipedia project and require immediate action by our volunteers. Second, although you claimed in your unblock request that you would abide by Wikipedia copyright policy , you again copypasted the same infringing article onto your talk page, despite a previous warning not to do so. Therefore, the request was appropriately declined. Third, you have deleted the unblock requests from your talk page despite the bold message stating "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." -- again demonstrating that you have not read or will not comply with guidelines. Now, finally, you are resorting to blame so many editors who have taken time to explain policy to you. Despite some initial impressions, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. It has rules. It is a collaborative project requiring each editor to read, to understand and to work within established guidelines. I am sorry but, at the moment, you are not placing yourself in that category. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Silkyaqua123, I personally apologize that you were humiliated by the comment on my talk page. I agree that it was unnecessarily blunt and uncivil. (It has been removed) I am also sorry that you perceive my actions here as unacceptable. Therefore I will withdraw from further administrative action here. If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. Please also note that if you abuse this procedure by making other unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)