User talk:FloTheGreat

Welcome!
Hi Florence232! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! No Great Shaker (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion No Great, but I have been here for roughly a year now. But thank you ever so much for the nice message. Appreciate it a lot. Always good to keep in mind!

FlowD (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
Hello. You have recently contributed to this article or its talk page. Please see this discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United Kingdom into Economy of England. 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.,. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'l follow this route in future.

FlowD (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello FloTheGreat! Your additions to Education in Italy have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about this! The edits have been reverted.

FlowD (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I see in a recent addition to Healthcare in England you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Got this. I'll take note and remember to do that in future. I thought that was okay to do at first.

FlowD (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:Lam312321321&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Lam312321321. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So, I have a problem with taking what you say at face value. Looking through the history of the SPI case, I see a long list of users with very similar interests to you, many of them with names which are references to someone called Florence, or to the band Florence and the Machine, and all operating off the same computer. I also noticed that when one of them gets blocked, for edit warring, or copyright violations, or sockpuppetry, another account is created and carries on behaving in pretty much the same way. Lots of those accounts have requested unblock in the past, usually saying something like 'I'm new, I didn't know about the copyright rules, I'll make sure I don't do that again', which is pretty much exactly what you're saying here again. I really struggle to believe that they are really different people, but even if there are more than one person behind the account, we move into the territory of meatpuppetry, which we treat in the same way as sockpuppetry. Dealing with edit wars and cleaning up after people who violate copyright soaks up huge amounts of our volunteers' time, which is the most precious resource we have - we simply cannot allow people to keep doing that again and again.
 * From what I can see, you are not a vandal or someone trying to cause the project harm; however, you appear to have no interest in learning how to observe behavioural policies like WP:EW, and content policies like WP:COPYVIO. If you want to edit here, what I suggest you do is read WP:SO, and the policies I've linked to, then take six months away from Wikipedia, with no editing at all. Then, come back and make an unblock request which acknowledges the problems with your earlier editing, and commits to make changes in future. It had better be convincing, because you have been blocked so many times you are now banned per WP:3X - any unblock request will need to be reviewed by the community at WP:AN. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  11:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I will come back in 6 months and do exactly what you said. Thank you. But is it fair that my good faith edits are being reverted by a user called Lord Belbury? I appreciate that well be against the rules to not do that, but the articles I edited were improved upon. Compare my edits at Transport in England or Economy of England and to what was reverted with and youn can see the good faith differences I made improving those articles. The Economy of England page was hard to do because I was the only editor there improving it.
 * I don't know whether it's 'fair'. It's common practice, however, to revert edits that sockpuppet accounts make, in order to discourage people from engaging in sockpuppetry. I haven't looked at the pages in any detail - I'm acting here purely as an administrator, dealing with the block evasion. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This user's various socks have been warned repeatedly for a full year and a half about external-content copyright violations, and this particular account was still doing the "oops, sorry, I didn't know!" routine just a few weeks ago in the talk section above, having deleted earlier threads on the same topic. The possible copyright issue alone (with many reverted edits pre-dating their most recent professions of ignorance) is enough reason to take us beyond the revertable "ambiguous cases" of WP:BLOCKEVASION. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In all due respect Lord, you aren't an admin here. I appreciate you have to take action where possible but I do feel you should let the admins deal with account issues in future. You don't need to revert good faith edits when an admin hasn't taken that action. My edits were completely fair with no levels of copyright issues. I am a devoted person who simply enjoys expanding articles and helping improve projects along with my friends. I appreciate your dedication but I do believe you need to stand back and allow the admins to do what they know best; you do not need to revert so many good faith edits when there are dozens of articles with poor information that could be expanded on.

Based on the admin's helpful and kind hearted advice I will return in 6 months and do what exactly they said. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloTheGreat (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Resolving the edits made through WP:BLOCKEVASION is not an admin issue: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."
 * When you say your edits were "completely fair with no levels of copyright issues" I can (per WP:AGFC) assume good faith that you meant well when writing them, but I cannot assume that you succeeded. You were adding copyrighted content to State-funded schools (England) with the sock accounts User:Jim113232 and User:Sapphire232 as recently as September this year, and were asked to stop, before adding further copyrighted content to Education in Italy from this account in October: all of this had to be redacted from the article history. The good faith reading of this is that you don't really understand how copyright works at Wikipedia and wrongly decided that taking some text from a website wasn't a copyright problem. Your edits - certainly all of your edits made by this account before October - have to be regarded in that context.
 * WP:BLOCKEVASION allows edits to stand when they are "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism", and some of your edits along those lines have been left in place. But when an editor who has repeatedly failed to follow copyright protocol adds a lot of new content to an article, it's unclear how helpful that is overall - and "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I will be making a report to the right person regarding your conduct Lord. You appear to enter edit wars far too often and do it whenever you wish without any form of care or respect for other people. You are not an admin nor have any formal power. A report shall be made about your contact to an administrator. I'm not a bad person nor making any form of violations. I just love editing Wiki and expanding articles. I know what I've done wrong; it's sometimes hard filling sections with new information and I shouldn't have copied elsewhere on Wiki. I'm sorry for my mistakes. But as I've said I use an open access computer at a cafe with about 40 computers. The other accounts are not mine and I will not accused like this. I am heartbroken my account is banned for good.


 * (uninvolved non-admin comment) As someone with experience in sockpuppetry (given that I was blocked for it for 3-4 years and have filed several sockpuppet investigations both before and after my sockpuppetry), the sockpuppetry is some of the most obvious sockpuppetry I have seen. In regards to Lord Belbury's behaviour, I see nothing wrong with his behaviour, your behaviour on the otherhand would be enough for an indefinite block on its own. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)