Jump to content

User talk:Bldonne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Your article

[edit]

It should appear in Google within two days of making the article. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bruvtakeover. But someone changed the title of the article. Instead of: 'Falcon and Magluta,' it now reads: 'Magluta and Falcon.' Why did this happen? How can I change it back to: 'Falcon and Magluta'? I appreciate your help, thanks. Bldonne (talk)

Falcon and Magluta

[edit]

Hello, Bldonne, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, Falcon and Magluta, is copied from another Wikipedia page, Magluta and Falcon. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:

  1. a link to the article you copied from
  2. the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Magluta and Falcon a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Falcon and Magluta. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

Followup: I've added a history merge tag to the page, and it should be straightforward for an administrator to carry out. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Bldonne. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ukexpat (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bldonne. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Voceditenore. can you please help me? a user by the name of: ukexpat keeps vandalizing my article and despite my warnings to him not to do so, he keeps vandalizing. and when i go back to edit my article back to its original copy, i get blocked from it. why is this happening? thers another user called: Jim1138 .. and he says that i lack references on my article. but thats impossible since i provided all the references upon the subject. again, i ask that you please help me, i'm new here and i dont understand why the victim is blocked from his own article. who can i appeal this to?
Bldonne (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Please be very careful when you accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did me here and I assume you were referring to me as the "idiot" here. Wikipedia takes personal attacks very seriously. You are a new user so I will not take any further action, but please read the civility policy and next time think very carefully before you throw around personal attacks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute. youre the one who vandalized my article. and you vandalized it several times. this is against wiki rules. if youre new here then stop doing this. because if you dont you can be blocked or even worse, removed from wiki altogether. again, stop vandalizing other people's articles. take this warning seriously.
Bldonne (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below: Ukexpat didn't vandalize "your" article. Please stop making personal attacks against other editors, and please read the links I provided. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But he did vandalize my article. When someone edits out huge chuncks of info from an article, it's considered vandalism. Why dont you see that?
74.108.163.44 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unsourced material from biographies of living persons is not vandalism. In fact, it is required. Editing to bring an article into line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style is not vandalism. Calling editors "vandals" and "idiots" in those circumstances is a personal attack. It demonstrates that you have not used the time while you are blocked to read and understand Wikipedia's policies. You have been given multiple advice and explanations here on your talk page and my talk page and links to the relevant policy and guideline pages which explain further. Wikipedia is not a web host for your personal writing. All articles can and will be edited by others to comply with Wikipedia's style and content policies. If you return from your block and continue to ignore these policies, make personal attacks, and edit war, I can pretty much guarantee that you will end up indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

[edit]

Your recent editing history at Falcon and Magluta shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts include those you've made while logged in and as an IP. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand whats goingon here. I posted my article and someone else vandalizes it, and I'm the one being in danger of it being blocked? Whats is this??!! I really dont understand whats going on. I didnt do anything wrong here. Why are you and others doing this?

Bldonne (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As several other people have explained, it's not "your article." Once you post material on Wikipedia it can and will be edited by others for style, content and compliance with Wikipedia policies. One of the most important policies on Wikipedia is the biography of living persons policy. Please take this time to read and understand it. Another policy is WP:3RR, which prohibits edit-warring. You were blocked for edit-warring, and for personal attacks against other editors who have made edits to the article of which you apparently disapprove. We appreciate your efforts to introduce new content. However, that doesn't give you veto power over the edits of others, nor does it give you the right to revert to your preferred version. Please see WP:OWN. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ukexpat's edits aren't vandalism. They're normal formatting for manual of style compliance and compliance with BLP. Please stop calling such edits vandalism as you just did in this edit [1]. That's part of the reason you're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thats not the reason why i'm being blocked. you said before that i'm being blocked for personal attacks. so why is it that this person called, Ukexpat, can vandalizes my article and i get in trouble for calling him one? youre not making sense. again, I DIDNT ATTACK ANYONE PERSONALLY. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!!! anyway, i do believe that i'm being blocked for racist/discriminatory reasons. i noticed that american wiki editors or admins block those of italian descent from posting about their italian/latin culture. this is very racist and is not tolerable. i'm going to ask you just 2 things: 1) why cant i post my original content, and 2) is there a special appeals board that hears cases dealing with racist editors who discriminate against authors of articles who come from different cultures? thats all i want to know.
Bldonne (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I blocked you for violation of the three-revert rule and for personal attacks. I have no idea what your nationality or ethnicity is, nor do I care. Wikipedia is an international production, and all are welcome, provided they observe the rules. You have not done so, and after many warnings and explanations, your editing privileges have been suspended so that you can understand why your reversions and aggressive tone with other editors are inappropriate. As for your questions, as I and others have repeatedly explained, you do not own the article, and you don't have the right to dictate its content to other editors, nor may you revert multiple times to your preferred version. Secondly, you may follow the instructions on the block notice at the bottom of the page to appeal the block. There is no indication of "racism" here that I see: there's no way for anyone to know what anybody's race, gender or nationality might be unless you yourself have revealed it. The idea that normal editing of newly posted content for style and compliance with policy is somehow "racist" is absurd. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon and Magluta

[edit]

Please remember to cite sources for your additions to Wikipedia. I removed your addition to Falcon and Magluta for lack of references. Especially to biographies of living persons wp:blp Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Falcon and Magluta. SpencerT♦C 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? I added references and theyre located at the bottom of the article. Why are you doing this to people who want to contribute to wiki?

Bldonne (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

We regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from [2] & [3], and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Falcon and Magluta saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this [4] and elsewhere. As has been explained to you several times now, Ukexpat did not "vandalize" the article you wrote. You do not own the article, and may not prevent other editors from editing articles you created for normal compliance with style, content and format. Please stop harassing Ukexpat. I will further note that you copied most of the text in the now-deleted article form other sources, causing the article to be deleted as a copyright violation. Please review Wikipiedia policy concerning copying, attribution and plagiarism at WP:COPYVIO. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how am i harassing Ukexpat by asking him a question which i'm waiting for him to answer? do you know what harassment is? and for the last time, I DIDNT PERSONALLY ATTACK HIM. I DONT EVEN KNOW HIM. is this so hard for you to comprehend this? youre the one doing the harassing since i didnt ask you my question. all i want to know is why on my article did he change one of the headings to 'rise' from the original 'rise to power'? thats all i want to know. and second, i asked you a question and you failed to answer it. i will ask it again... since you said i copied from another source, should i just write the article in my own words but it is possibe to borrow some phrases from the source?
once again, i'd like to know why Ukexpat changed one of the headings. when i get a convincing answer, i will stop asking him questions.
Bldonne (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making accusations of racist motivations is, as Moonriddengirl points out at greater length below, not appropriate. She's explained the heading issue, and Ukexpat was well within policy in making the change; he felt it was more appropriate and is entitled to politely disagree with you: you are entitled to politely disagree with him, as long as you're both working within the manual of style conventions. For your part, you could easily have phrased your question to him in a constructive manner, rather than as an accusation. For what it's worth, when I see a username like Bldonne, I think of John Donne, who was certainly not Italian, so I'm stumped as to how you think people are responding to you based on ethnicity. We used to have a notice at the bottom of the edit window which stated, more or less, "You can expect your contributions to be ruthlessly edited for spelling, style and content." I think it was considered discouraging to new editors, but it was truth in advertising. Copying phrases is absolutely Not Done, and even close paraphrasing is considered a violation of policy. I think you could rewrite the article without getting into difficulty with these issues, citing the sources as appropriate, but it will take time and a willingness to accept criticism, guidance and editing input from other editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way editing works on Wikipedia

[edit]

In answer to your question at my talk page, no user will be preventing from changing any article you offer to Wikipedia unless they are actually violating policy. User:Ukexpat's changes were within policy, as I will explain below. He is not only allowed but encouraged by policy to alter an article you write in ways that he thinks make it better. He does not require that you agree that his changes make things better, as he has as much a right to want things his way as you do to want them yours. When two editors cannot agree, they seek consensus.

To explain that more completely, Wikipedia is an entirely collaborative project. That means that every editor in good standing has an equal right to help develop any article. This may seem strange, but the fact that you start an article doesn't mean that you have special authority to decide what it says. If another editor thinks "Rise" is a better heading than "Rise to Power", you have to work with him. You can't question his right to make the change, and you can't describe such a change as vandalism. There could be many reasons he would want to change it; he might like one word section headers or he might think calling it "Rise to power" is not neutral. (We would never call it "Rise to Power" as this is not our local style.) Whatever he thinks, it's okay. And it's okay that you think otherwise. You are required by our policies to assume he is trying to improve the article, just as you are, and to reach consensus on the matter. To do this, you talk politely to him about it on the talk page of the article. You don't call it vandalism. You don't imply that he might be prejudiced against Italians. You explain why you want it one way and listen to him explain why he wants it another. If neither of you can persuade the other, you use dispute resolution to get other people involved to help you decide.

This is the way all Wikipedia articles are developed. And this is why it says underneath the button you click every time you save a page, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." What you put here will be changed. All of us who contribute here have to accept the way the process works.

The way you have been talking to Ukexpat is wrong. I see you asked Voceditenore where you personally attacked him.

You have been given links to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, so you may have already read this, but I will point out that it says that "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Describing someone as "some idiot" is insulting and disparaging. Accusing somebody of vandalism is insulting and disparaging.

A few policies that I would recommend you read, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia:

It is not always easy to contribute here. Sometimes we get unhappy when people change content in a way we don't agree with. But following these policies will help you succeed here. Not following them, unfortunately, will lead to your being blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should all contribute to all this. but i will read the wiki policies in accordance with whats accepted. thanks.
Bldonne (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In respect to your latest notes to him, the tone is considerably better, but please note that implying that he has to reformat Einstein if he wants to reformat this article really isn't done. We call this kind of argument "OTHERSTUFF", and it doesn't work on Wikipedia because not everybody works on every article and it wouldn't get anything done. :) He could as easily find another article that uses short section headers and ask you to make those long if you want longer headers in your article. Telling him that you see other articles with longer headers and that the longer headers seem okay to you is fine.
While your tone is considerably better, and I appreciate that you avoided outright attacks, your communication with him as an IP is still a bit aggressive: "i got my theory as to why youre doing this, but i want to read your answer first"; "this I got to hear"; "heres your chance "; "i will be looking for those changes in the einstein article." These all read as sarcastic and confrontational, and the first one sounds like you aren't "assuming good faith". You may not intend to sound that way, but I would ask you to be careful with your language to avoid contributing to what we call a "battleground" environment. We're supposed to enter into collegial, friendly conversations with those with whom we disagree.
In terms of your question regarding copyright, Wikipedia is bound by United States copyright law, and in our efforts to comply with those forbid copying from copyrighted websites except for brief, clearly marked quotations. These quotations have to be used for good reason. That is, we can't copy them just because we want the same information or we like the way they said it. Under US law, this risks "superseding" or replacing the original instead of building on it. Instead, you might quote perhaps to show a point of view (John Smith described the movie as....) or to illustrate a point (The organization focuses on international collaboration; in its mission statement it urges...). In this way, we use copyrighted content sparingly to help us build something new--we "transform" it.
Aside from clearly marked quotations, used sparingly, all other content you place on Wikipedia based on information you find in copyrighted sources (which is most sources) has to be written in your own words. For example, if your source says, "The pair's acquittals also had another well-publicized consequence: A dismayed Kendall Coffey, the U.S. attorney at the time, resigned following an altercation with an exotic dancer shortly after the verdict" you cannot say, "The pair's acquittal also had another well-publicized consequence: A dismayed US attorney at the time, resigned following an altercation with an exotic dancer shortly after the verdict." This isn't rewritten enough. You've only removed a few words. You can discuss Coffey's resignation, but you have to describe it in your own way.
Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a brief overview of our copyright policies that may be helpful to you in crafting a new article.
As a final point, please be sure that the sources you use are very clearly connected to the information you provide. This is important in all articles, but especially important in biographies about living people. To avoid libel, Wikipedia has a blanket policy that anything in an article about a living person can and should be removed, if somebody isn't sure it comes from a reliable source. It's better in this case to use too many footnotes than too few. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moonriddengirl. thank you for your comments. i also want to thank User:Ukexpat for his good spirit and cooperation. his dialogue with me was productive and positive. Moonriddengirl, i do agree with you for the most part. but, based on past observation, many admins and editors have been guilty of supporting what many view as baised/discriminatory content on wiki. wiki unfortunately still maintains a northern-european ethnocentric model, where it removes VERY credible sources to articles that it finds offends this model. until wiki can shake off this biased model, it will continue to promote its one-sided version of history. thank you and User:Ukexpat for your support. take care.
Bldonne (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a truth we all acknowledge; there's even a page about it: Wikipedia:Systemic bias. :) However, it is very unlikely that most editors and administrators intentionally support biased/discriminatory content on Wikipedia. It is natural that editors will find more credible sources with which they are familiar in languages which they understand, and it is natural that they will pay attention to topics they know something about and even approach history from a perspective they've been taught. It's important not to approach the issue in a way that creates ill-will. Instead, suggestions can be put positively. You can say, "I think it's important to improve coverage of this to avoid systemic bias"; this is not a personal attack. It becomes a personal attack if you begin to imply that the person you're talking to is incompetent or deliberately obstructing progress.
If you're interested in the issue in general, there is a project of like-minded editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Britonia, you may be blocked from editing. WP is a cooperative effort. You are not doing a very good job of it. Trigaranus (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the warning above, the edit to Britonia wasn't vandalism: it may not have been constructive or referenced, it wasn't explained and it inappropriately changed from British to US usage, but it wasn't "vandalism." However, your edits to Britonia and Mozarabic Rite were appropriately reverted as unsubstantiated and unexplained, and your edits appear to be an attempt to insert your own point of view on the subjects.Countering perceived systemic bias requires appropriate sources and is not the same as editing in your views on a given subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Apple Inc., please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  GSK (t ● c) 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bldonne&oldid=1079484380"