User talk:El Cazangero

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 13:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker

Please see Talk:Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied content

User:El Cazangero/Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Croatian Encyclopedia

Three different articles, eh? I was originally thinking they should all be included into one reasonably long article rather than two (or three) very short articles. Do you have any more info on these enyclopedias? Thanks for the input. --Thewanderer 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Croatian Wikipedia has it that way: a disambiguation page for hr:Hrvatska enciklopedija and individial articles for hr:Hrvatska enciklopedija (Ujević) and hr:Hrvatska enciklopedija (LZMK). Some information about the Zoch-Menzin 1887 encyclopedia can be found in the Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia (it's only mentioned in hr:Enciklopedija currently). I can contribute with that, but it should probably be added to hr-Wiki first. --El Cazangero 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anacaona

Hey, Caz, it's not an ad. It's a review from one of the most respected review publications. Btw, take a look here: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 23 You have deleted paragraph that was placed there to keep other material from being deleted. This is getting too confusing! Pepso2 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any solution to this double-bind? Pepso2 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered there. --El Cazangero 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Why did you remove my most recent discovery on Albanian history? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek

Vote to delete or keep this article here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.157 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isomer confusion

You set a redirect 4-Methyl-4-penten-2-one → Mesityl oxide, but that latter article lists its IUPAC name as "4-methylpent-3-en-2-one". That is, the double bond is in a different position along the chain. Compare:

C¹−C²(=O)−C³−C⁴(−Me)=C⁵ (4-ene unconjugated to 2-one)

C¹−C²(=O)−C³=C⁴(−Me)−C⁵ (3-ene, matches diagrams and aldol/enone ideas at mesityl oxide)

They are both isomers of 3-Methyl-3-penten-2-one, but they are not the same as each other. Could you re-check which isomer is which in which context? DMacks (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right (of course), the confusion is straight from Ullman's, where 4-Methyl-4-penten-2-one is mislabeled as mesityl oxide. But the structure (and content) of "4-Methyl-4-penten-2-one" in Ullman's (Ketones, p. 12-13) refers to the 3-ene: ((CH3)2)C=CHCOCH3. The 4-ene is Isomesityl oxide, where the redirect should point to. Thank you for the clarification. --El Cazangero (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism, intentional or accidental, is to be avoided

Ullmann's Encyclopedia " It has a very low MAK value and is recommended as a solvent because it is photochemically inactive."
User:El Cazangero: "It has a very low MAK value and is recommended as a solvent because it is photochemically inactive"

You need to avoid that kind of edit.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other instances where the language is just too close for comfort.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not plagiarism, but correct citing. Plagiarism is masquerading someone else's work as your own, for instance by omitting the source. --El Cazangero (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the note: Here is the deal: In the U.S. and European cultures, we use quote marks ("") to indicate that the phrase is an exact match. We do this to avoid trouble.

On another topic, please do not remove content (like formulas and lede information) without explanation. For example the lede to 2-Hexanone. Many of these articles are mature, so experienced editors here do not make big changes without some explanation. We try to consult each other, cooperate, and discuss things. Otherwise editing suffers because people are changing a lot of stuff without asking for advice and input. Do you think that it would be possible to discuss these changes before you make them? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Thanks for the cleanup at the balsam of peru article. I wonder whether you may not have cut out too much -- e.g., the 60-70% figure, which is properly sourced to an RS, and the phrase that describes it as a combination.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that because of the wording, which appeared wrong: "Balsam of Peru [...] contains 60–70% cinnamein (a combination of cinnamic acid, cinnamyl cinnamate, benzyl benzoate, benzoic acid, and vanillin). According to the British Pharmacopoeia, Peru balsam consists of "45.0 per cent m/m to 70.0 per cent m/m of esters, mainly benzyl benzoate and benzyl cinnamate." So it's 60 - 70 % of both esters (with a varying ratio), not only benzyl cinnamate. Second, cinnamein is not a combination (mixture) of compounds, but a (molecular) compound of its own. Greetings, --El Cazangero (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any way you can edit it to square the statement made by the RS cited, and incorporate the point it makes? I'm not partial to any construct, but would simply like to reflect the 60-70% point, and reflect it accurately, if possible. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just do as you like. Consider harvesting Peru balsam to its own article, like the other resins: (benzoin, labdanum, myrrh, olibanum, storax, tolu balsam). Cheers, --El Cazangero (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balm of Gilead‎

Brave attempt at trying to introduce some sense into this topic. I wish there was an easy fix- I just feel that too much has been lost in the process. It does help a reader researching Samuel Solomon in History of Jewish settlement in Manchester- and closes off the possibility of expanding this line. Perhaps using your new page as a high level article- and using a {{more| tag at each section heading to refer back to the detailed article would work- but you obviously have researched the pharmacology and will be developing this area further.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting refs

Is there some reason for this removal of referencing? We normally presume that readers should be able to verify our statements by checking the sources from which our editors take the information. wp:V and wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT pertain. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that they aren't essential, and there were too many of them. Readers verifying the data should use better sources anyway. What matters is that the data is correct, not that it's referenced. --El Cazangero (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but that's not the way it works on the English-language WP. Here, we have policies at play, and the key ones are designed to ensure that what WP says is backed up by citations to reliable sources, and that those sources can be used by readers to verify what is said in the articles. For a long time we actually called for "Verifiability, not Truth", but that has now been rephrased. The main point is that because Wikipedia is "the Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit". Most of our editors are anonymous or pseudonymous. Readers generally cannot know who wrote something in an article, so trusting our editors would be foolhardy. Instead, they can trust the sources cited, which are written and published by identified people. If you think the readers should use better sources, it's perfectly reasonable to cite those better sources (after verifying that they do support the thing being said of course!) but please don't just remove citations without replacing them. Our concept of what is a "better" source is described at wp:Reliable sources, with amplifying details at wp:MEDRS for biomedical topics and at wp:SCIRS for other science topics. In general we prefer recent secondary sources, independent of the researchers who did the investigation, published in a peer-reviewed journal or university-level textbook by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the time you wrote your lenghty sermon, you could have put the sources in question back in. It's interesting that such modest sources attract such vigorous attention. I doubt they're reputable or reliable, they looked like a fig-leaf to me. --El Cazangero (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I find it's generally more productive to educate new editors than to edit war with them. :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care too much about those weblinks, it's just another reference bloat, but the data should definitely be checked. However, readers unfamiliar with the subject are unlikely to check them, aside from being poor interpreters, because they do not know what "vapor pressure" or "partition coefficient" is. On the other hand, readers familiar with chemistry will (and should) consult better sources, like CRC Handbook, Beilstein, Ullmann's, Merck Index, etc. Since there are only few reliable sources of physical properties, and they are well-known, in general they need not be cited at all. Doing so is tantamount to linking every single word to a dictionary entry. The weblinks in question only provide an illusion of correctness. --El Cazangero (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to cite one or more of those books instead of a website, that's perfectly reasonable, and is supported by policy. Please provide page numbers too. Removing the citation entirely, however, is not on. If we started accepting that, anyone could (and would) insert any random pseudo-"fact" wherever they pleased, and many such would go undetected for a long time. It's bad enough as it is. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Sminthopsis84. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Opopanax, but you didn't correctly use the reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to re-work the material and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not copy material from a copyrighted work! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Balm of Gilead has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Same problem at Opopanax.

I'm unaware of any copyright infringement in my edits. Also, copyright claims may originate from copyright holders, not from co-editors playing the devil's advocate. Issuing unfounded copyright threats is a frequent formal argument in disputes about content. Even copious literal citations would be covered by fair use, provided that they are referenced, let alone short and concise sentences. --El Cazangero (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Warning about repeated copyvio

Sorry but what you say may be fine elsewhere, but not here. Here you must follow our policy on copyright. Your interpretation of fair use is not one we use here. Consider this a formal warning as I've discovered that you reinserted text including "The Romans, however, captured them and, in his triumphal march in Rome, Titus displayed balsam trees brought from Judea. The orchards in Jericho and En-Gedi henceforth provided the Romans with an important source of revenue" copied from the Encyclopaedia Judaica:[2] despite being warned above. I am considering raising raising a WP:CCI as you obviously don't understand our policy and other articles may need examining. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Sheba

I've had to do more reverting and deleting there. I really wish I didn't have to do this - it's a waste of my time and you are trying to improve the article and I don't like undoing people's work when they are acting in good faith, but part of my role as an Administrator is making sure our policies are followed. WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is a very good guide to avoiding copyvio. You may have noticed that I stopped a blocked editor from reverting you earlier, both because he was evading his block and because your version seemed an improvement. One other point - we have a policy called 'No original research' - see WP:NOR. In a nutshell it means sources must discuss the subject of the article. This is extremely different from writing an article for an academic journal where you can build an argument on sources that don't directly discuss the subject. Again, it's policy and needs to be followed. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Cazangero, you have made some controversial edits ("Chatter..") and reverted my revert with the notion "Talk". I would highly prefer you came up with better reasons for that and if you ask for using the talk page, then do so yourself. Serten (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, El Cazangero. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. I hope that you can actually help clean up the articles you have edited. I've made it clear that appear to be unaware of or don't understand our policy. I hope you've read it by now. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CCI has been opened, and the relevant page is here. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balm of Gilead

Hi, I'm sorry to see your latest edit on this article, made without discussion; I had clearly marked my edit as being discussed on the talk page, where I have explained my reasoning. Could you please go there and explain why you wish to replace this material, despite the reasons stated on the talk page? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to TALK. You might have right or not, I don't know - but try to talk it over - or take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution... but in order to do that you have to try to talk first. I don't want you any harm but I had to tell you that you are editwarring now. Please try to talk it over instead. Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hafspajen, do you refer to the Queen of Sheba article or another? I have asked User:El Cazangero to contribute to the talk page before he restarts controversial edits. Serten (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Balm of Gilead, and I don't think it is controversial, just needs some talking. Hafspajen (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Cazangero, could you please stop your (slow) edit-warring on Balm of Gilead, and accept the clear majority view? You have not joined in the discussion on the talk page, despite repeated invitations and Hafspajen's encouragement to talk. We would like to hear your opinion; that would be far better than simply having to revert your edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Queen of Sheba, he's still in silent mode on talk page but goes ahead with deleting content, again and despite the warning I gave in the section above. In so far the warning here includes the Queen's article as well. User:El Cazangero, I would prefer you took a break. Serten (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in that case you need to involve an admin, like Yngvadottir Hafspajen (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Don't tell him' ;) Lets say, I still stay patient. Serten (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if it happens one more time without discussion we will need an admin to take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why wait? People have to discuss things. If somebody doesn't that's edit war, and there are rules to follow on Wiki - one have to follow those when editing because otherwise it might .. well you know, se above. I would say WP:Dispute resolution, but the point is that you can't go there without discussing it previously. I say involve Yngvadottir, still one of the nicest, most patient of admins, my best bet. Hafspajen (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, try her. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Cazangero: Consider this a final warning. You need to make your case at Talk:Balm of Gilead and Talk:Queen of Sheba, not just in edit summaries. There are multiple issues involved - weight, sourcing, and copyright (I'm concerned by your recent edit summary referring to "feigned" copyvio concerns - they are very real, since Wikipedia is publication and we license the entire contents of the encyclopedia for reuse for any purpose, so the freer and easier standards of academia do not apply) and you can't do justice to any of these in an edit summary. Go talk, the other editors are fully willing to listen to you and that's also the best way to get help finding more sources. But edit warring is not the answer - it doesn't work, and it disrupts the encyclopedia. So stop reverting now and go talk it through on both talk pages. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Yngvadottir: I'm sorry to have to report that El Cazangero has again reverted at Balm of Gilead and at Queen of Sheba. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Printing problem

Although I can't help you with that, the people who can are at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and failure to discuss on the article talk pages. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block ...

El Cazangero: I've had to revert your changes at Shulamite and Shulammite because they constituted a copy/paste move. I've started a talk page section at Talk:Shulamite; please explain there why you wished to move the article.

I still see you editing without discussing at Balm of Gilead. Please go present your position on the article talk page. Otherwise you will continue to waste your expertise, because your changes have been challenged and you have not shown why they make the article better. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies for the Queen of Sheba again, Yngvadottir. He made his first section on the talk page, which, starting with the title, was rather offensive, his reasoning for further disruptive edits sort of funny. Even if you Cazangero believe, that Léopold Sédar Senghor were a racist, and less of Afrika's greatest intellectual, you wouldnt be allowed to delete his points about the Queen of Sheba. Come back with less POV and suggest what you want before you erase valid content. Serten (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Cazangero, Serten is right. Thanks for going to the talk page, but you need to go back there again, provide specifics, and actually discuss. You are still simply reverting - edit warring - without any discussion at Balm of Gilead and need to go to that talk page too, and discuss. Explain your point of view and others may agree in whole or in part. They are very unlikely to do so if you just edit war. And if you continue to edit war, you are subject to further blocks.

I notice also that you are using encyclopedias as sources, for example in your almost total rewrite of Tohu wa-bohu. That's not good. Find some more specialized academic sources (secondary, as opposed to tertiary like Wikipedia itself). Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balm of Gilead Pistacia lentiscus.

I am impressed by the quality of your work and scholarship- but I have a tiny problem with the title. I can't find a reference to suggest that Balm of Gilead is other than Pistacia lentiscus- and that the Balm of Mecca is anything other than Commiphora gileadensis. If that can be proven I can support your text. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysocolla (gold-solder)

I've undone your move of Chrysocolla to restore the primary mineralogical usage and renamed your new article Chrysocolla (gold-solder). If there is a better name for the article it can be changed. Please discuss such moves of longstanding articles on their talk before any such moves in the future. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

Browse the new WikiProject page
Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Articles

Hi. I see you've been doing some good work on articles relating to tobacco smoking. Just to explain why I've reverted/removed some of it. You need to take care that you stay focussed on the article subject, and not wander into related topics that are best, and more comprehensively, covered in their own articles. So, for instance, you have created an article on tobacco smoke, but this article shouldn't be discussing in any degree of detail tobacco smoking, which has its own article already.

Otherwise it could be suspected that you are creating what is known as POV Forks and/or using the article as a "coat rack". Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Free base. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Crack cocaine, 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. Cahk (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Bedrocan

Hi, I'm Rasimmons. El Cazangero, thanks for creating Bedrocan!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article could use more references to determine the notability of the strain and the accuracy of the information within the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely 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.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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 17:50, 11 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I do not violate any copyright, I always cite correctly and include the source. Also, I use many free sources from archive.org. Doug Weller has a wrong notion of copyright, and he is using it to harass me. El Cazangero (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below, it appears that you don't understand how copyrights work at all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:09, 14 June 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.

You seem to be making the claim that sources from archive.org are free (that is, freely licensed). Could you please clarify that? It's absolutely false on its face but I'm not sure whether or not you are claiming this. A clarification would help the unblock procedure. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned by "I do not violate any copyright, I always cite correctly and include the source". Correct attribution does not give you the right to copy the source content into Wikipedia unless it is already freely licensed. Correct attribution is a valid defence against plagiarism but not against copyright violation - they are very different things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 14 June 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).

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

Request reason:

The copyright blocking reason is totally bogus. Neither of you is entitled to pursue copyright claims, and the true copyright holders did not protest. We've had this before, it's plain harassment based on "somebody else's copyright". El Cazangero (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can't allow you to violate somebody else's copyright on Wikipedia. It is simply not the case that Wikipedia will allow copyright violations until such a time as the copyright owner lodges a complaint. We have a far higher standard here. Yamla (talk) 12:39, 18 June 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.

The suggestion that it is acceptable to violate someone's copyright until they actually find out and complain is stunningly ignorant and arrogant - it's akin to saying it's acceptable to steal from shops so long as the shopkeeper does not notice and does not pursue you! Unless you radically change your approach to respecting copyright law and to respecting Wikipedia's copyright policy, I see no chance of your being unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, El Cazangero. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bediol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bediol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bediol until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bedrobinol

The article Bedrobinol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable strain produced by non-notable company. Refs provided are name-drops and nothing more.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Chrysolith" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chrysolith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 § Chrysolith until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]