User talk:Budgewoi

Talk

Copyright violation
You appear to have committed a huge copyright violations at User talk:Budgewoi/RoleOfWomen. Please immediately take steps to have this remedied. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Budgewoi/RoleOfWomen


A tag has been placed on User talk:Budgewoi/RoleOfWomen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315027395/sahaja-yoga-judith-coney. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I guess whatever I said is either as bad as you can imagine, or it was innocuous and misinterpreted. If you can't even see it yourself then how are you to judge? Are you really authorised to make the call if someone else has hidden the record? Budgewoi (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way 331dot I have not been involved in an edit war, just trying to get another editor to actually discuss points on the talk page. The fact is, he was shadowing my activity on Wikipedia and reverting everything I did with flimsy excuses. Budgewoi (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have subsequently communicated with the blocking admin and- while I still do not know the specific contents of the edit- I will say that I am convinced that the comments were egregious violations of the harassment policy. Your back and forth editing meets the definition of an edit war. You are free to make a new unblock request for someone else to review, but I doubt you will be unblocked without an interaction ban agreed to as part of unblocking you. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When you find out what I said that was so egregious, please let me know.
 * In regards to the alleged edit war, it was also someone else going back and forth. That is my point that the other editor was not discussing the edits as I had invited him to on the talk page but rather reverting multiple edits with flimsy inaccurate and unhelpful summaries. He is stonewalling any change to that article and to further intimidate me, he was following my activity and reverting my activities on other pages in the same fashion. Budgewoi (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am now aware of the contents of the edit, and while I won't repeat them, they are clear, egregious violations of WP:OUTING. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The changes that I made are still visible, they don't seem too bad. All I said was that the lack of bicycle paths can lead to danger for cyclists in traffic. This was implied by the reference too by the way. I can't remember the edit summaries exactly, I don't think they were revealing anyone's personal information. Did you get to read the summaries? Budgewoi (talk) Budgewoi (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I did say "be careful". This was a light hearted joke and rebuff to this editor who was following me and reverting my edits in the above mentioned unhelpful way. I'm not sure how that could be construed as a threat though. Budgewoi (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to make another unblock request for someone else to review, in which you make that point. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why won't you consider that point? I have not revealed anyone's personal information so how can the WP:OUTING rule apply to my changes? Budgewoi (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If multiple admins can judge on hearsay, that's a bad situation. You need oversight on your oversight.
 * Maybe you took the flag seriously when you had it but this case shows that other admins are not so principled. They abuse this power to stifle debate. In this case there was absolutely nothing to the comments, a mere retort as is written in the above conversation. The fact that it was stricken from the record and I was blocked is because this served as a convenient excuse to stop me insisting the other editor actually justify his constant reversion. The user and the admin have been working as a tag team to get their own way. Budgewoi (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Admin note for those reviewing future appeals: the arbitration committee was contacted regarding these edit summaries which is how it got brought to the attention of oversighters. An oversighter reviewed the edit summaries and decided to suppress, and following further discussion a second oversighter (me) decided to upgrade the block to an OS block given that it relies on now-suppressed information. To be clear these were individual oversighter actions, it just happens that the ArbCom was contacted instead of the Oversight queue. Any reviewing administrator is free to contact me or the arbitration committee by email if you have questions about the reason for suppression or block. you are free to appeal on your talk page, but you may also appeal directly to the arbitration committee at . I recommend reading the guide to appealing blocks before moving forward with your next appeal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More stonewalling. The first thing it says at the guide to appealing blocks is to understand why you have been blocked. So far I've heard "harassment" and "outing" but with absolutely no evidence as the edit summaries have been conveniently erased. The language I used in the edit summaries related to the changes made. No offensive language was used and there was certainly no personal information included. As mentioned, I did retort something to the effect of "be careful" to the user BonCourage who, even though he couldn't provide a proper edit summary or contribute to discussion on the talk page, still had the time to pursue me onto other articles and revert my edits in an intimidating fashion. The oversighter and user have been working in tandem to stifle debate in the subject area that I was editing. There is evidence as they chased another editor for any excuse and also blocked him. If you look at the history of the article I was editing, it is clear the BonCourage user stonewalls discussion and reverts every reasonable edit with dismissive edit summaries. Clearly they have an agenda and want to suppress discussion on the article. Look at the records its very clear what's going on. Budgewoi (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)