User talk:Calantee

January 2010
Your addition to Marc H. Ellis has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. 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 article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Copied from http://www.baylor.edu/jewish_studies/index.php?id=33813 Whpq (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright block
You have been blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly violating copyright policy by copying text into Wikipedia from another source. You have been previously warned that this is against policy. If you wish to request reinstatement of your account's editing privileges, please make sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to quote non-free text. If you believe this block is unjustified or to indicate your understanding and acceptance of our copyright policy, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have received your e-mail, but prefer to discuss Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia itself. I am watching your talk page and can communicate with you here.


 * I have blocked your account for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's copyright policy. You were notified of our policies and your need to comply with them on January 7th. As Copyrights explains, previously published content cannot be imported to Wikipedia unless it is verified that this content is licensed in compliance with our requirements. In spite of this, you have repeatedly imported content from, which is clearly marked "Copyright © Baylor® University. All rights reserved." You imported the content again after that caution on January 19th, May 14th, June 3rd and June 11th. While there are other problems with this content (primarily that it issues from a source related to the subject himself and so does not meet our verifiability standards), the most urgent issue here is the copyright concern.


 * If you wish to resume editing, you will need first to read over our copyright policy and indicate your understanding of it and readiness to comply. You must not again copy content from any previously published source without first verifying that you have authorization to do so.


 * In addition, based on your e-mail to me, I would suggest that you read over our conflict of interest guidelines and Biographies of living persons/Help. If the subject is unhappy with the content of his article, there are steps he can take to ensure that it complies with our policies, but I'm afraid that does not extend to controlling its content or appointing others to do so. Even if he provides permission, the content you are attempting to place may not be judged as appropriate for inclusion, particularly as it seems unlikely to clear our neutrality policy, which is core. You state yourself that his work has been extremely controversial, but the content you have placed does not reflect that; all of the "Commentary on Professor Ellis’s work" (none of which is cited, which makes the material in itself unusable under non-free content policy and guideline) is positive, which would suggest that it has been cherry-picked for that purpose.


 * If you should not wish to request an unblocking here, Professor Ellis still has options for airing his concerns about the article. Biographies of living persons/Help, to which I referred you above, can provide assistance there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The material is claimed under copyright of Baylor, and as they have published it prior to its placement here we would need their approval to use it, as I explained above. If they do not claim copyright in spite of the notice, they can contact the Wikimedia Foundation to explain that. However, as I said, the content is unlikely to be accepted for other concerns.


 * If Professor Ellis has issues with the content currently in the article, he can follow the processes described at Biographies of living persons/Help to resolve them. Certainly, Wikipedia does not condone the use of its articles to libel individuals. I do not currently see any material that seems derogatory, and I can't find anything in the article's history to suggest he has been labeled here a "destroyer of Jews." Perhaps I misunderstand you, though, and you mean he has been called that elsewhere or you are using the term as an approximate rather than an actual example. If content such as this is added to the article and it is not caught by the vandal patrollers who routinely watch Wikipedia, it will certainly be swiftly removed. Dr. Ellis and his representatives can remove it themselves if the article is not protected or, if it is, notify volunteers of the problem by placing Editsemiprotected at the talk page with an explanation of the issue; placing adminhelp on their own talk pages with an explanation of the issue; or writing to the Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Response Team at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. (The first two actions generally yield quicker results, as the volunteer response team receives quite a few e-mails, but they are also generally able to provide more in-depth assistance.) There is also a board where issues can be reported: WP:BLPN.


 * The Wikipedia community is very interested in safeguarding the rights of article subjects. There are a number of processes in place meant to protect against libel and to help swiftly clean it up, while still remaining within the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Moreover, we are constantly looking for ways to improve these practices. For example, we are currently testing a new process called Flagged revisions which, if successful, could prevent precisely the kind of problems that concern you. Under this process, content added to articles would not appear to general readers until and unless approved by senior editors. While it will not stop sourced criticism from entering the articles of controversial figures, it should help prevent angry screeds and vandalism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)