User talk:Protesilao19

A tag has been placed on Giovanni Tognoli, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Giovanni Tognoli is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Giovanni Tognoli. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template  to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. — TKD::Talk 14:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; please don't insert a biased essay (especially one with no verifiable, reliable source) wholesale into an article, as you did at Multiculturalism. To do so violates Wikipedia's policy of not giving any point of view undue weight. That point of view needs to be summarized, and its source cited properly, in order for it to be included. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a sight of the issue, what is the violation?--Protesilao19 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is three-fold: (1) It is not being made clear whose position is being stated in that essay. (2) That essay looks like it is a copy-and-paste from elsewhere, which would constitute a copyright violation; (3) It's improper to have paragraphs and paragraphs devoted to a point of view from a single source. — TKD::Talk 15:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is copyright free, and as regard the only one point of view, you can post another point but I think wrong to delete my point of view, What do you think?--Protesilao19 15:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not copyright-free; it's copied straight from, which has a notice "©Fred Reed" at the bottom. Further, the criticism of multiculturalism as it applies to the United States is already covered in a section further below. — TKD::Talk 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was in a free section where I found, for your second question: is possible relocate the article and in a small version?--Protesilao19 15:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Being free to read on the Internet is not the same as being free to copy elsewhere; those are two different things. Fred Reed seems to be somewhat notable, but other more prominent people are cited as being against multiculturalism in the United States as well (see Multiculturalism). Is there anything that Reed is saying that's really different from the persperctives of the other opponents of United States multiculturalism? In any case, blogs aren't that reliable in many cases, so has his work been republished by a notable newspaper? — TKD::Talk 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your addition to Multiculturalism
...was copied from. Please do not copy material from other websites into Wikipedia articles. Doing so constitutes a violation of copyright law. Even if the addition had been in your own words, it would constitute a gross violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contribute constructively by using your own words and adhering to Wikipedia policies. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, --Rockero 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PLEASE do not insert copyrighted text into Wikipedia articles. Repeated violations of this policy constitute vandalism, for which you can be blocked. Consider this your second warning.--Rockero 17:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Ronaldo
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Ronaldo. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Andeh 20:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Ronaldo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Condoleezza Rice, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalise? It'was only a question, you did'n see the similarity?--Protesilao19 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No; it's a negative and unfounded implication to make. — TKD::Talk 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok...you're insensitive, you don't help Condi to find her lost brothers..--Protesilao19 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SCIMMIEb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SCIMMIEb.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — TKD::Talk 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)