User talk:Londongreek

March 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion  (talk)  23:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy/paste of clearly copyrighted material into a free-content encyclopedia with an incompatible copyright license is a very bad thing to do. Please use the next 48 hours to read Wikipedia copyright policy (lots of links are provided on the many warning notices you've accumulated) so that you might avoid trouble when your block expires. This has nothing at all to do with the notability of the organization.  Acroterion  (talk)  23:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? By my reading, about 60% of the article was a direct copy of the referenced website, which says "©IAML." Not "CC-by-SA"," which would be WIkipedia-compatible.  Acroterion  (talk)  23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba (Talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And straight off your last block, the article is recreated copy / pasting content from the same website verbatim. Once your block expires, you are advised to read and understand our copyright policy before editing further, because the next violation will lead to a termination of your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing a few words here and there is not sufficient, nor is rough paraphrasing. You must entirely rewrite in your own words, with appropriate attribution for sources of information, not words. The above analysis makes it clear that you don't understand this, and your contribution history, including denial that there was ever any copyright violation at all, does not increase confidence.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to be unblocked solely to continue creating the article on IAML. But the article you're creating reads like an advertisement, not a neutral encyclopedia article, and you appear to be a person with a conflict of interest that would make it inappropriate for you to be writing on this subject. I searched for independent, reliable sources writing about this subject, and found virtually none, which leads me to wonder whether this subject would even meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I'm reluctant to unblock you simply to create advertisements about your own organization; are you interested in being unblocked on the condition that you avoid this subject and focus your volunteer work at Wikipedia on articles you don't have a direct connection with? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fisher Queen, and would like to add the following. I have looked through a substantial sample of your edits, and it seems that your primary, if not only, purpose in editing Wikipedia is advertising various people and organisations. Wikipedia is not a free advertising agency, and such editing is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies. I would therefore emphasise that Fisher Queen's "focus your volunteer work at Wikipedia on articles you don't have a direct connection with" would exclude editing other subjects to which you have a connection, not just the particular one she refers to. I see that you say that you "would like to contribute to and improve articles on international law, human rights and family law". This would be very different from your past editing, which has largely consisted of writing glowing prose about particular individuals and organisations, mostly (though not all) lawyers and law firms. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

William Stern
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William Stern, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --DeLarge (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited William Stern (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergen-Belsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)