User talk:Blanedsc

Copyright problems with Blane De St. Croix
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Blane De St. Croix, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Blane De St. Croix appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Blane De St. Croix has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blane de st croix
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Blane de st croix, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://futureartsresearch.asu.edu/about/blane-de-st-croix. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blane de st croix
A tag has been placed on Blane de st croix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Claritas (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself, as you did at Blane De St. Croix. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Rd232 talk 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blane De St. Croix, to Wikipedia as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Claritas (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Blane de st croix, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

re your comment "content is from my personal website" - see Donating copyrighted materials. However this still leaves the problem that creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest concerns. Rd232 talk 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blane De St. Croix
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Blane De St. Croix, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://blanedestcroix.com/bio/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this recent edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Blane De St. Croix, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio issues
Hey, I thought I'd come on and explain a little bit more about copyvio. First, you have to give up the content as fair use, but there are other issues beyond that. Basically, the biggest problem with using copyvio is that the source material is usually written in a fashion that is unacceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. In many instances the issue is with tone, as the copyvio material is almost always written in a way that promotes the person in the best light possible. This is understandable and even recommended for use on your own website or press releases, but we would still need the material to be completely re-written in order to meet our guidelines per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:NPOV. Other times the writing is too casual, which can give off the impression that it is promotional or just generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. (An example of this would be an article about John Smith where the name John is dropped as if it were two people chatting together over coffee.) In your instance it kind of had a bit of both of those, but there was also issues with it needing a lot of editing to meet the basic way most articles are laid out for artists. The way it was posted on the article came across as a little unreadable at points.

Even beyond that, an article that is directly taken from another website will always, always, ALWAYS have people tagging it as copyvio. Some may look at the talk page and see that a ticket was submitted through WP:OTRS, but many will still tag it as being copyvio. I don't want to say that it would be akin to harassment since it would be done with good intent, but in the end it will save far more time if you re-write the material to where it isn't the same phrasing as the stuff on your personal website. It's very, very rare when an article uses copyvio and isn't eventually completely re-written in new wording. It might seem like a pain, but it's just easier in the long run to re-write everything and meet our basic article layouts than it would be to keep trying to keep people from tagging it as copyvio, non-neutral, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)