User talk:Historywiki11

Revert

Hi, Sorry about the revert on Talk:Ugonna Ozurigbo: I undid the wrong revision. My apologies! DrStrauss talk 22:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: It's alright. Thanks for the great job. Historywiki (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Hello. I noticed you have blanked your talk page twice without giving a reason for your actions. You must know that deleting warnings off your talk page because you don't like them anymore is not exactly a very good thing to do. Because of this, I've decided to help you and create an archive for you. See it at User talk:Historywiki11/archive. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the above archive. If you want to archive your talk page you are free to do so, but no one has the right to force it on you. You can ask for it back if you desire or we can leave it deleted. - GB fan 00:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Thanks so much i appreciate it and i want it deleted as you have already done. Historywiki (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). 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 built-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) 06:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Some of the you have added here are simply spam.[1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added

"Ibom E-Library had over 50,000 materials covering literature and facility for e-conferencing as of 2015, and 2 Million recorded research works. This is backed by an outstations supported by mobile library (Truck Library). At these outstations, users can connect with the central station to obtain whatever material they need."

Ref says

"It has over 30,000 materials that covers literature and facility for e-conferencing. This is backed by an outstations supported by mobile library. At these outstations, users can hook up with the central station to obtain whatever material they needed.

[2]]

You added

"The E-Library is a five story building with a basement floor and an inbuilt smart class and language learning centre, assisted by internet access that covers a five kilometers radius real time and has over 70,000 subscription of electronic materials"

Ref is

"It is a five story building with a basement floor supported by internet access that covers five kilometers radius real time and has over 70,000 subscription for electronic materials."

[3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 16 December 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).

Historywiki11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Admin, please my intentions when i was adding the pictures and some of the links was not to vandalize or in anyway disrupt editing. I am very committed to editing and adding contents to Wikipedia. Most of the issues i've had is basically adding images and knowing if they're copyright free. Since my previous warning i have not added any other photos and will not until i am able to master the guidelines for uploading images. I will make contributions that are copyright free and that meet the guidelines if i am given another chance, if you check my contributions you will see i have no history of reckless editing or vandalism. I have understood and seen where i have failed or lacked and plead to be given another chance Historywiki (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not the case that your only copyright violations are with images. You are also violating copyright with text, too. And the articles you are creating are inappropriate for Wikipedia and are being speedily deleted. And then there are the concerns about conflicts of interest. And this has been going on for months. You'll need a massively more compelling unblock request for this to be considered. Yamla (talk) 12:15, 16 December 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.

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).

Historywiki11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Am so sorry but i can't sound or have anymore compelling appeal or way of apologizing and explaining that it wasn't an intentional sabotage or attempt to vandalize pages. I've been editing on Wikipedia for months, i know most of the rules about editing and i do everything to make sure i abide by it. This is my first block so far and now that i've learned from it, it would happen again. But if you feel i should still be blocked, it's fine. Thanks so much for your time and effort on Wikipedia Historywiki (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you apply again for unblock, please include in your request a detailed explanation of your understanding of copyright policy as it applies to the insertion of text into Wikipedia.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:02, 18 December 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 have had a lot of instruction surrounding copyright [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Yes, and i ignorantly ignored it because i thought it would be deleted if it fell under any copyright violation without having to face any consequences on my end, but i was wrong. Historywiki (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so that is why you are blocked. Continued copyright issues despite multiple prior warnings. Other issues include the promotional style of your writing and the fact that you are adding references that do not appear to support the content in they are behind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marko Stout for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marko Stout 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/Marko Stout (2nd nomination) 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Marko Stout for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marko Stout 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/Marko Stout (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]