User talk:Reattacollector/Archive 1
New account[edit]
Hello, as far as I am aware, you don't have to do anything if you've already abandoned your old account. It could be a "sock puppet" account if you were using both at the same time, but that's not the case here, so I think you'll be fine! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Reattacollector, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Reattacollector! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome[edit]
|
Notice[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
June 2016[edit]
Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Vicente Fox seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ford SHO V6 engine into Ford Taurus (second generation). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Plurals in article titles[edit]
Wikipedia prefers the use of singulars in its article titles to plurals— "minivan", not "minivans". Please create new articles under the singular forms and consider moving those you have already created to singular names. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- KDS4444 (talk · contribs) I can move those articles to new singular titles of "minivan" instead of "minivans". However there appears to be an edit dispute arising with my whole project with merging all the Chrysler minivan articles into individual generation articles, so I'm likely to leave the articles as they are for the moment, until that is resolved. Reattacollector (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Copy-paste of content[edit]
It seems you ignored or did not see Diannaa's post above. Please respond here so we can work out what needs to happen. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was rather confused by Diannaa's post because I did not reference, copy or edit the Ford SHO V6 engine article. I thought maybe it was a bot message. I got that message after I merged the Mercury Sable article with the individual Ford Taurus generation articles. The entire Sable article was just a fork of the Ford Taurus article, and a poorly written one at that, not to mention that every individual article about the different Ford Taurus generations had a section about the Mercury Sable basically describing the Sable and any unique features and options to begin made me believe that that messy, redundant article was better off just merged with the Taurus.
That was the same motivation behind my activity on the Chrysler minivan articles. The Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Town & Country are more or less the same vehicle, differentiated only by trim and equipment. Each van had its individual article, and all three of those articles basically had the same information, all of which was forked from each other, with varying quality. Then on top of that, there was then another individual article for the Chrysler Voyager, which was basically a slightly modified Caravan for export, that was a low-quality fork from the Dodge Caravan article. And then another Chrysler minivans article that is another overview of all the generations. How many articles do we need to just say the same thing over and over again about the same topic? I don't understand why coverage of them is spread around multiple redundant articles, as I believe that all of the vans can sufficiently be covered by one article, that was made up of the best information from each article. Not only is it easier for the reader, as all the information about these vans are in one place, but it also makes it easier for us to improve our coverage of these vans and ensure uniform quality with the edits and articles. For an example, the Fiat/PSA joint developed minivans just have a single article, Eurovans, instead of having four individual articles for the Citroën Evasion, Fiat Ulysse, Lancia Zeta and Peugeot 806 that are all clones of each other just like the vans they are covering. Thus I've compiled all four of those articles into new articles about each generation:
- Chrysler minivans (S)
- Chrysler minivans (AS)
- Chrysler minivans (NS)
- Chrysler minivans (RS)
- Chrysler minivans (RT)
Since Chrysler has merged all of their minivans into one model for 2017, the Chrysler Pacifica (RU), that article can stay just the way it is. It appears I may have ruffled some feathers with changing so much as quickly as I did. But I was unsure exactly who to consult. I'm aware of WikiProject Automobiles, but there is little to no activity there anymore. Enough that I am also unaware of any users that are actively committed to improving automotive coverage. And well, I figured somebody has to do it.
There are so many more examples of this too around Wikipedia. For one, I also think the Mercury Villager article should be merged into Nissan Quest, as the Villager is just a rebadged Quest and there is no unique information in that article that isn't or can't be covered in the Nissan Quest article. But I am not going to do any more unilateral moves like that until this is resolved. Reattacollector (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Reattacollector. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of automobiles considered the worst, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bosch and Junkyard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
american politics ds notice[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.That link[edit]
Hi. I'm guessing this was an accident, but you stuck an external link on the front of this edit. You're probably aware that we don't use inline external links, and in any event this one appeared unrelated to the topic. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Reattacollector. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyright[edit]
You've continued to violate copyright after previous warnings, so I've blocked you for 24 hours to give you an opportunity to read and understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE. Please note that you are placing the entire Wikipedia project in legal jeopardy. Any further copyright violations are likely to result in an indefinite block, so please take this very, very seriously. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please provide where I have been "warned previously" about violating copyright? I don't recall ever offending or being warned about violating copyright. I don't even know what edit I made to earn this. Reattacollector (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The warnings are still on this talk page. See "Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution" and "Copy-paste of content". As to the edit which violated copyright, it was this one where you added a fair-use image without providing the mandatory fair-use justification. Yes, it's an easy mistake to make and an easy mistake to fix, but it also places Wikipedia at risk and absolutely cannot be allowed. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- [I'm editing from a public computer I don't feel comfortable logging into my account from.] I would like to rebut that both of those "warnings" are over two years old, and they are regarding copy/pasting content from within Wikipedia, the "copy/pasting" coming from work I was doing attempting to merge overlapping/redundant articles into each other. I responded with this with the "second warning", to which the admin never responded, engaged with me again or otherwise informed me where I was violating any rules. They do not establish of pattern of behavior of constant copyright infringement. In the two years sine I had a completely clean record of behavior, only to find myself blocked out of the blue because I added the Subaru logo to the Subaru of America page. I don't believe I deserve to be one step away from a lifetime ban from Wikipedia over this. 74.205.162.254 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Basically everyone's one violation away from an indefinite block for copyright violations. Note that I explicitly said "indefinite" rather than permanent. In general, if you continued violating copyright, you'd receive an indefinite block until you answered a questionnaire about copyright, at which point you'd have your block lifted again. Any further violations beyond that point are quite likely to be practically permanent, however. --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Request Unblock[edit]
Reattacollector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for 24 hours because I have "continued to violate copyright" after "previous warnings". However, I don't recall ever being warned about committing copyright violations at any point since I created this account, nor have I even been informed what edit I made that constituted a "copyright violation" to earn this block. I don't upload images nor have I ever copy/pasted content from outside sources. I believe my block was either done by mistake or without proper justification. At the very least, I would like to be shown where I have have been given "previous warnings" against committing acts of copyright infringement, since I don't believe I ever have. Reattacollector (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly have been warned about copyright prior to this block, as can be seen here and here. —DoRD (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2019 (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.
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Yamla Could you please explain this? I wanted to perform a significant expansion to the Amati Cars article while I was away from home on a different computer so I posted it on my talk page so I could copy it over to my Sandbox when I got home and continue to fine tune it before it was ready to post. All the text I used was original and properly attributed, all the images I used (including the image of the company logo) were free images from the Wikimedia commons. I come home, find the edit permanently struck and I'm indefinitely blocked for "copyright violation". I go from trying to create an article to banned from Wikipedia for life in the blink of an eye. Why is this happening? Reattacollector (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- After previous warnings and a prior block for copyright violations, you copied content unattributed from Amati Cars. Although you did modify the content, significant parts were copied unmodified. You knew perfectly well that copyright is a big deal to us. You claim "all the text (you) used was original and properly attributed". This is simply not true. You copied entire sections from Amati Cars, complete with grammatical mistakes. For example, "The W12 engine featured an aluminum engine block, Magnesium cylinder heads and oil pan, and fitted with ceramic valves and pistons (perhaps ceramic coated)" from paragraph four of Amati Cars was copied verbatim. This is not a case of you using all original text, numerous parts were lifted wholesale from that article. Yes, you modified some sections, often significantly. But you also copied and pasted, and did so without attribution. I'll also note that you are clearly not "trying to create an article"; you clearly knew we already had an article on Amatic Cars, as you lifted content from there. Note that it is also not true that you are banned for life (though this is a misconception common among users in your situation). You are blocked (not banned) indefinitely (not for life). You are welcome to attempt to convince an administrator to lift the block. Given what appears (but may not be) attempts to mislead us here, about the nature of your copying, I'm disinclined to lift the block at this time. --Yamla (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Yamla Let me explain again: I was working on a significant expansion of the Amati Cars article. Since I was on a different computer and couldn't log into my account, I posted the planned expansion on my talk page so I could copy it into my Sandbox when I got home to copyedit it. Once it was ready, I would then post it to the Amati Cars article and it would be the article for Amati Cars. So yes, there were parts of the Amati Cars article that were lifted, because I was taking the text already in the article and expanding it and improving it. When I would be done, what you removed from my talk page would have been the Amati Cars article. I want to be clear: I was simply expanding the existing Amati Cars article. I am struggling to understand your explanation for how I "violated copyright" unless me posting text from the Amati Cars article to this talk page amounts to a procedural violation. I am frustrated by how it seems there isn't a distinction between a blatant pattern of intentional copyright violation and a minor, accidental violation where it seems a reasonable course of action just would be to undo the edit and explain to the editor "You can't do that, this is considered a violation of copyright because _______. Now that you know don't do it again." I am also frustrated by how I can go over two years with a completely clean track record, but because I received a warning in 2017 I earn a immediate, hair-trigger block in 2019 for a "pattern" of copyright violations because I mistakenly added a fair use image to an article where the fair use wouldn't apply. No warning, no approaching me and trying to discuss the matter, just immediately blocked. No chance for me to learn and rehabilitate, just now for as long as I edit Wikipedia I am under the risk of being indefinitely blocked at any moment, even if I go years without ever violating Wikipedia policy and the one time I do violate policy is minor and unintentional. I am being treated like a reckless vandal when I am really a constructive member of the Wikipedia community who at most may require some mentoring. Reattacollector (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Yamla To give you a little more background, I tried to log into my account to post the finished expansion into the Amati Cars article, but I couldn't remember my password, so it wouldn't let me in. I tried to reset my password but since I don't have an email account linked to my Wikipedia account it wouldn't let me do it. I basically got locked out of my account. So the text I planned to post to Amati Cars I posted to my talk page so I could put it in my Sandbox when I got home. (I have never used my Sandbox before, so I couldn't post it there from the IP address. It told me that I would need to "create" the article and I needed to log into an account to do it.) That brings me to something I wanted to ask an admit. When I got home today I tried to add an email to my account so I could reset my password, but it requires me to enter my password to add my email, so I couldn't do it. If I am ever logged out of my account from this computer then I will be locked out of this account permanently. Is there a way I can get help with this? Reattacollector (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I finally found where I have my Password written down, so I was able recover it and attach an email address to my account. If I would have just done this before today I could have avoided this whole mess. *Buries head in hands*Reattacollector (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I want to be very, very clear. It is not just a procedural violation. It is an outright, unambiguous copyright violation. You were copying content from Wikipedia. You were doing so without adhering to the license. You were copying other people's content without their permission, without following the license they offered this content under. This isn't some edge-case policy, this is absolutely core to Wikipedia. Wikipedia literally cannot work if people violate copyright. You know this. You've been blocked for this. WP:COPYRIGHT has a big red box telling you this, and we know you've read that page. The key paragraph is the last bit in the big red box. I'm deeply, deeply worried that we aren't getting through to you. Heck, you've explicitly acknowledged that you've been previously warned for violating copyright by copying content within Wikipedia. What more do we have to do here?!? How many more times are we going to have to go through this with you? Look, perhaps the best path forward is the following. These are Yunshui's standard questions about copyright. I have posted them below. Please answer them. Please also note that this would almost certainly be your last chance. This particular block is indefinite, but any further violations would almost certainly result in your permanent ban, as you are placing the entire project at risk here. Be warned; the questions below are not a trick, but some users fail by simply copying and pasting their answers from Wikipedia policy. You should clearly know by now that would be unacceptable.
- I finally found where I have my Password written down, so I was able recover it and attach an email address to my account. If I would have just done this before today I could have avoided this whole mess. *Buries head in hands*Reattacollector (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:
- What is copyright?
- How is Wikipedia licenced?
- Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
- Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
- How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Yamla, Now that I have put down the keyboard, gotten a full night's sleep and am reapproaching the matter with sober mind instead of being caught up in the emotional turbulence of trying to understand/rationalize how I got blocked again, I better understand where you are coming from and I took this morning to again go back over Wikipedia's Copyright policies, particularly "Copy and Pasting Within Wikipedia". I am aware that my behavior was unusual and extraordinary, and I did still violate Wikipedia's policies of copy and pasting within Wikipedia by adding my proposed edits to Amati Cars to my talk page without noting that some of the content is copied from what is already in the Amati Cars article, as noted in the guidelines, noting this in an edit summary and directing users to the history of the Amati Cars page is generally considered appropriate attribution. I don't believe there was anything wrong with the text itself, and it wouldn't have constituted a copyright violation if I would have kept it all within the confines of the Amati Cars article. I have been editing Wikipedia for about 15 years now off and on. I first registered an account when I was in middle school and eventually I quit using it. I registered this account in 2015 as a fresh start because now as an adult I wanted to separate myself from the account I used when I was still a minor. Wikipedia policy has tightened significantly since those days and I have not been diligent about making sure I continue to adhere to it. I was editing back in the days when articles didn't require inline citations and people would just upload random images from the internet and apply a fair use tag. But that's not an excuse. It is still my responsibility to stay up to date with Wikipedia's changing policies. You being trigger-happy with the blocks is because this is an area where there are legal considerations.
Now I want to ask just so I understand the policy and don't get in trouble again: Is it still possible for me to work on significant expansions of articles outside of the article itself such as in my personal Sandbox, or is that now allowed anymore due to Wikipedia's Copy and paste policy? Back in the day it was a regular occurrence for editors to create a subpage of their own user page to work on new articles or article expansions (e.g. ((user:Reattacollector/Amati Cars}}), has that practice been banished as a result of Wikipedia's tightening copyright policies? If I am fortunate enough to get unblocked, one of the first things I want to do is contribute my planned expansion to the Amati Cars article, could you give me guidance on how to proceed with that if my appeal is successful? I think if I do get unblocked, I will like to stay in regular contact you either you or another admin who is well versed in Wikipedia's copyright policies so I don't end up violating the rules again due to any amount of ignorance or misunderstanding. I will be providing answers to your questions shortly. Reattacollector (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Yamla, to answer your questions:
- What is copyright?
Copyright is that the creator of a work has exclusive rights to produce or distribute that work for a limited period of time. When a copyright is in effect, other parties can only distribute the work with the permission of the creator, or reference the work in limited amounts that give attribution to the creator and are deemed to fall under "Fair Use" within copyright law.
- How is Wikipedia licenced?
The text in Wikipedia is copyrighted by it's editors and contributors and is generally licensed to the public under either the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and/or the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Thus, the text from Wikipedia can only be reproduced with attribution from the source article it is reproduced from, so the article's history can be referenced to determine which particular editor contributed the text. This includes copying within Wikipedia, such as merging articles together. In such cases the edit summary must include attribution of where the text came from and the editor may also include the {{copied}} template to the article's talk page. When merging articles, the editor should seek to merge the history of the merged article as well.
- Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Because Wikipedia prides itself on allowing its content to be freely distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and/or the GNU Free Documentation License, Wikipedia would face significant legal risk and exposure to accusations of copyright infringement if editors liberally used copyrighted content without adhering to proper attribution and fair use guidelines. If not, Wikipedia would basically be an unauthorized free distribution service for pirated media not too different from Napster.
- Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
Wikipedia can use copyrighted content in limited amounts that give attribution to the creator and are deemed to fall under "fair use" within copyright law. (E.g. quoting a short passage from a written work with attribution to the author as an illustration of the author's views on a particular topic or for critical analysis of the work) Otherwise, Wikipedia can only use copyrighted works in which the creator has willingly relinquished the copyright or in which the copyright has expired and the work is now in the public domain.
- How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
I have been editing Wikipedia for about 15 years on and off, after a lengthy period of inactivity I decided to create this account in 2015 as a fresh start because my previous account was primarily used when I was a minor and I didn't want to continue to be associated with it as an adult. My highest activity of editing Wikipedia before I resumed editing in 2015 was prior to 2010, when Wikipedia guidelines were much less strict than they are now. When I resumed editing, I didn't do my part to re-educate myself on Wikipedia's policies and how they have changed since I last was a regularly active editor. This is my own fault and not an excuse for my behavior. The way I responded to the warnings I received from admins when I have committed unwitting violations could have been reasonably interpreted as disregard, contributing to the disciplinary actions I have received this year. The two blocks I received this year have been an effective wake-up call to remind me that editors can't behave the same way we were allowed to in 2007, Wikipedia guidelines are much more strict today and there is a lot less tolerance for editors who violate them, especially in areas where we could be putting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. I have taken this time to thoroughly re-read all of Wikipedia's copyright guidelines and as I told User:Yamla above, going forward I intend to keep in contact with an admin like himself or another with good knowledge of Wikipedia copyright policies in cases where I have any questions or doubt where an edit might be in violation. I want to stress that I want to work with you guys and contribute to the encyclopedia constructively, I always contribute to this encyclopedia in good faith, even though in cases like yesterday my behavior was pretty hare-brained and went against policy.
Reattacollector (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was working on a significant expansion of the Amati Cars article. Since I was on a different computer and couldn't log into my account, I posted the planned expansion on my talk page so I could copy it into my Sandbox when I got home to copyedit it. I tried to log into my account to post the finished expansion into the Amati Cars article, but I couldn't remember my password, so it wouldn't let me in. I tried to reset my password but since I don't have an email account linked to my Wikipedia account it wouldn't let me do it. I basically got locked out of my account. So the text I planned to post to Amati Cars I posted to my talk page so I could put it in my Sandbox when I got home. (I have never used my Sandbox before, so I couldn't post it there from the IP address. It told me that I would need to "create" the article and I needed to log into an account to do it.) It appears that it got tagged for a copy and pasting content from Amati Cars, which wasn't intentional. I was just trying to copyedit a planned expansion and view it completed before I added it to Amati Cars to make it an actual edit and things just went sideways. Reattacollector (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
To the reviewing admin, note that I have asked this user Yunshui's standard copyright questions. Please consider not reviewing the above unblock dated "00:42, 3 August 2019", until Reattacollector either answers the questions or explicitly states they are unwilling to answer the questions. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Planes, Trains and Automobiles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)