User talk:Crowfurt

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to American City University has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: American City University was changed by Crowfurt (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.948494 on 2016-09-30T09:44:06+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, I'm Jfeise. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of unaccredited institutions of higher education without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jfeise (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Crowfurt, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to User:Crowfurt has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you paid to edit any articles?

I'm not, please unblock me! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowfurt (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I need to ask you because you may be unwittingly violating Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, a basic policy with legal considerations. If you are not, and have no conflict of interest either, ignore this. If you are you need to disclose it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements that must be met for articles

Besides following our other policies, articles must show notability by our criteria. For organisations, that is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Doug Weller talk 11:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at American City University. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: American City University was changed by Crowfurt (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.938112 on 2016-10-04T01:02:19+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this edit. It was also clearly promotional. Are you affiliated with or paid by any of the institutions whose articles you are editing? Doug Weller talk 07:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 05:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read my warning carefully. I won't block you but if you continue after 3 editors have reversed you someone probably will. Doug Weller talk 05:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at International American University. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crowfurt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should not be blocked as I have did nothing wrong with the indication of the content and I have no advantage involved in this particular article, kindly study the content carefully, it has just reflected the latest development of the institution. Should not be involved in the news that has not been confirmed before.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just wondering why not blocked other users to keep undid the page, just because they thought what they indicated are true enough?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowfurt (talk • contribs)

As you were warned, "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". You were the only editor on that page who broke this rule. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crowfurt. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]