User talk:Knowleche

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Liverpool F.C. into Liverpool F.C. Women. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you so much fore letting me know, I really appreciate it. I'm new to this, so still learning the best practices. I've added the attribution notes to the relevant sections. As a lifelong Liverpool fan, trying to help maintain and add to the pages. If there's anything else, please let me know. Hope you have a lovely evening and weekend. :) Knowleche (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The attribution text should go in the edit summary field, not in the article itself. When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

That is where you would add the copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution note. DanCherek (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair blocking of account under false pretences

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for no apparent reason. I have been falsely accused of things I have never done. I have not been edit warring whatever. I don't even know what that is. I have contributed to building an encyclopaedia as I am passionate about learning. All my additions have been cited and sourced correctly. All procedures and guidelines have been followed to the letter. For that I have been bullied and threatened by a few people

Decline reason:

You were given plenty of warnings about your unacceptable behavior, and you continued disruptive editing anyway. I wouldn’t have blocked you under WP:NOTHERE, but that’s a technically, as I would have blocked you under WP:DE. Therefore, appeal declined. Courcelles (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2023 (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.

Knowleche (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests. If you do so again, your access to this page will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]