User talk:Guns of brixham

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Guns of brixham, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Philistines 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Untermensch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani. 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) 09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremiah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kings. 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) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Laws

I see that I have already warned you once for copyright violations. This is your final warning: Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arrow Cross Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani. 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA notice

The arbitration committee has decided that editors with less than 500 edits, such as yourself, may not edit any article which is broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict , including Talk pages of such articles. You were probably not aware of this restriction when you edited Talk:Zionism , so I am making you aware of it now. Please to not continue to edit there until you have accumulated 500 or more edits in other areas of the encyclopedia. Read more about the case here WP:ARBPIA3. Epson Salts (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Which other accounts did you use, prior to this one? Epson Salts (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I have my answer Epson Salts (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nuremberg Laws. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Priestly source, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave exactly the same reason that Pico gave at this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priestly_source&diff=737521579&oldid=729434816 Did you send him the same comment? The reason given is perfect justification for the revert. It is not a hypothesis. It is accepted by academics that there was a Priestly source.Guns of brixham (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Priestly Source is ACCORDING to the Documentary Hypotheses, one of the sources. You can't say that the Priestly Source is a source of the Torah, that is not POV nor what the sources state. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make the same point to Pico, did you also make that point on the talk page?

Talk:Nuremberg Laws

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you don't actually care about the material about the Communists, but are only pressing that point as a way of reintroducing your proposal of stripping out background material about the Jews from the article. If this is true, it's a disruptive way for you to behave, in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now agreeing with you that the material should only relate to the NL, so you are correct that the material about the Communists should not be restored to this article. I just do not think that it is not in the spirit of wikipedia to decide that some victims of the NL should have more coverage than others. Here is the introduction to wikipedia article racial policy of Nazi Germany. 'The racial policy of Nazi Germany included policies and laws implemented in Nazi Germany (1933–45) based on a specific racist doctrine asserting the superiority of the Aryan race, which claimed scientific legitimacy.' The racist doctrine asserted the supremacy of the Aryan race, and there was a hierarchy of subordinate races and groups, such as Communists below that. The NL being one example of application to the three mentioned groups. Whereas the Civil Service Law applied to all non Aryans and Communists. Therefore in each case all groups specified under that particular law should be given coverage as to the effects on them. I am asking that the specific groups affected by each piece of legislation or discrimination should be treated as how they were affected by that individual piece of legislation or discrimination.

I believe that victims of the NL should be given appropriate coverage relevant to how the laws were applied to them, and background material should reflect that. For example the article includes material on the economic effect of Nazi discrimination on Jews, yet I am now unable to add material that reflects Gypsies being subject to a special employment tax, or being re deployed from jobs to slave labour. If there were no economic effects on Gypsies, then I would not have anything to add, but there was, and I do. There was anti Gypsy legislation before the NL, and it set the background as to why Gypsies where included in the NL. Without that background it appears as if they were an afterthought. They were not, and that remains my concern.Guns of brixham (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:34, 24 September 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).

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

Request reason:

This is the first time I have been on wikipedia. Why have I been blocked? Guns of brixham (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not the first time you've been on Wikipedia; this account has been editing since September 16. You were blocked because you are believed to be the same user as Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs). Yamla (talk) 12:00, 25 September 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.

It is September 2016 now, so I do not understand what the reference to September 2016 means. Believed to be is not the same as known to be. Can you ban editors because they are thought to be someone else? how can I prove that this is my first and only account?Guns of brixham (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"this account has been editing since September 16"; there didn't appear to be a need to specify the year, as I thought this was self-evident. I'll clarify. This account has been editing since September 16, 2016. As to how you can prove that this is your first and only account, you basically can't. The overlap is much, much, much too large to be coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been making contributions since 1st August 2016. Why would you mention Sept 16? If that error is an example of the information that you base the block on then it is no wonder that you have made this mistake. The overlap between my mainstream views and millions of other people is not coincidence. I don't know why are banning me when I have made such useful edits. What a loss to wikipedia.Guns of brixham (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I didn't scroll far enough down. I brought it up because you claimed, "This is the first time I have been on wikipedia." but, as you point out, you've actually been contributing for a while now. Actually, looks like since July 11th, 2016. It's quite likely you meant "this is the first account I've used" rather than how I read it. But again, the concern is the significant overlap between your edits and the blocked user, Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs). It's not just the focus on the same articles, it's the same sort of edits. --Yamla (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a request to WP:UTRS may be helpful here. They can have another checkuser (or at least, another editor familiar with this problematic blocked vandal) validate or refute your block, for example. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, yes I did mean that this is the first account I have had. Since I don't know what the other user did or wrote about I can't comment on any resemblance. Most of the articles I have edited had hardly been touched for years, e.g. Kabbblah, Midrash, Baal Shev Tom, Mishnah,Folk Religion. I added RS and removed flowery language. I think that is just standard wikipedia editing, and not related to any 'same sort of edits'. Perhaps if someone looked at the overall number of edits I have made they would see that I have mainly operated in remote areas where I did not see anyone else. Maybe I should have stayed there. I once edited the Zionism talk page by mistake but I have not gone into Israel Palestine areas since. I know that I got excited about what I feel is a lack of material relating to the genocide of Roma/Sinti at the hands of the Nazis but I have been far from disruptive, and I have never indulged in revert wars. I will try your suggestion. I would really like to stay and I would take any kind of sabbatical or period of monitoring in order to do so.Guns of brixham (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Guns of brixham (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16602 was submitted on Sep 26, 2016 19:59:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Guns of brixham. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]