Jump to content

User talk:Londongreek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2011

[edit]
You have been blocked temporarily 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy/paste of clearly copyrighted material into a free-content encyclopedia with an incompatible copyright license is a very bad thing to do. Please use the next 48 hours to read Wikipedia copyright policy (lots of links are provided on the many warning notices you've accumulated) so that you might avoid trouble when your block expires. This has nothing at all to do with the notability of the organization. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

there was no copyright violation

Decline reason:

You'll need to explain why you think cutting and pasting unambiguously copyrighted material from http://www.iaml.org/ is not a copyright violation. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (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.

Really? By my reading, about 60% of the article was a direct copy of the referenced website, which says "©IAML." Not "CC-by-SA"," which would be WIkipedia-compatible. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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, as you did at International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba (Talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


And straight off your last block, the article is recreated copy / pasting content from the same website verbatim. Once your block expires, you are advised to read and understand our copyright policy before editing further, because the next violation will lead to a termination of your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Contrary to what is stated by MLauda there was no verbatim pasting from www.IAML.org Please consider

1 Article intro:"The International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (IAML) is a worldwide association of family lawyers who are recognised by their peers as the most experienced and expert family law specialists in their respective jurisdictions. The IAML was founded in 1986 and aims to improve global international family law practice"

The IAML strap line at IAML.org is similar but significantly different "The IAML is a worldwide association of practising lawyers who are recognised by their peers as the most experienced and expert family law specialists in their respective countries""


2 Heading "Chapters" in deleted article: "The IAML currently has 3 regional organisations, or Chapters[4]: a US Chapter with over 260 fellows from 33 states; a European Chapter with over 140 fellows from 21 different countries; and a Canadian chapter with over 30 fellows. Over 60 IAML fellows practice outside the USA, Europe and Canada, namely in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa." This was initially different but was edited by an unrelated user "DonnaGoddard" to the extent that it replicated the website. I agree that this edit should be reversed.

3 Heading "Audrey Ducroux Memorial Lecture"

An annual lecture in memory of the late Audrey Ducroux, a highly regarded French family lawyer, is given by a leading international jurist at each IAML AGM. At the 2010 Meeting, held in Queenstown, New Zealand the lecture was presented by former Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, who asked the question " what impact do War Crimes tribunals have on the welfare of Victims?"[5] The 2011 Audrey Ducroux Keynote Speaker will be the Right Honorable Baroness Hale of Richmond, the first and (so far) only female judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (formerly House of Lords)

This section does not exist at IAML.org and the, in my view, highly important lecture, is hardly referred to. Once again the allegation to the effect that it was "pasted verbatim" from IAML.org is demonstrably wrong.

3 Notable Fellows This section, which was intended to pull together IAML members, many of whom are family/human rights activists, judges or politicians with entries in Wikipedia, does not exist elsewhere on the web (and certainly not in IAML.org. Once again the allegation to the effect that it was "pasted verbatim" from IAML.org is demonstrably wrong.

If it is felt that the intro is too similar to the strap line on the IAML website, I will redraft it. Otherwise I would respectfully ask to be unblocked and the article reinstated. The IAML leads the way in the important field of Family Law. It is mentioned in a considerable number of other pages, it is clear that an entry on the organisation is needed.

Decline reason:

Per comment below, and having more than one open unblock at a time. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2011 (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.

Changing a few words here and there is not sufficient, nor is rough paraphrasing. You must entirely rewrite in your own words, with appropriate attribution for sources of information, not words. The above analysis makes it clear that you don't understand this, and your contribution history, including denial that there was ever any copyright violation at all, does not increase confidence. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks Acroterion and apologies re the introduction and chapter sections ( I agree that they will need to be redrafted in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines which I had not considered as carefully as I should have, notwithstanding the fact that the differences were such that there was no breach of copyright), however this does not hold true for the rest of the article which is not replicated in the IAML.org site. Additionally, I note that the article was edited by DonnaGoddard, an unrelated contributor and the Executive Director of the IAML who did not allege breach of copyright.

I would also ask you to consider the fact that the IAML strap line The IAML is a worldwide association of practising lawyers who are recognised by their peers as the most experienced and expert family law specialists in their respective countries is in the public domain, a google search will reveal that it is repeated in countless other sites with reference to this particular organisation [1]. Even if one ignores the fact that I changed the wording of the strap line in the introduction to the article, this fact alone is a defence to any allegation that there was any copyright breach.

I short, I accept that this article needs to be improved and the intro and "chapter" sections redrafted. I would welcome the opportunity to do this as soon as possible.

Thanks FisherQueen. I have an interest in International Family Law and this is one of the leading organisations in the field. It is mentioned in a number of Wikipedia articles ( see Canadian LGBT Rights campaigner Martha McCarthy[2] and Irish Minister of Justice, Defence and Equality Alan Shatter)[3], in countless lawyer websites around the world and in non-commercial sites devoted to law reform[4] and collaborative law[5]. I simply thought that it deserved an article which I tried to keep as neutral as possible and used a layout similar to other similar organisations ( the IBA and ABA, for example). This is not my organisation, as you may gather, the IAML is simply a not for profit bar association [6]. I have no conflict of interest. If I am unblocked I will, of course take your criticism on board. Going forward, I would like to contribute to and improve articles on international law, human rights and family law. My editing will certainly not be IAML specific. Clearly this episode has been a learning experience for me and I am confident that my future contributions will benefit as a result.

Decline reason:

Per below, you probably shouldn't be unblocked unless you agree to stay away from the subject of IAML - whch s clearly not what you intend to do, based o your long statement justifying your editing in that area. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:45, 24 March 2011 (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 sounds like you want to be unblocked solely to continue creating the article on IAML. But the article you're creating reads like an advertisement, not a neutral encyclopedia article, and you appear to be a person with a conflict of interest that would make it inappropriate for you to be writing on this subject. I searched for independent, reliable sources writing about this subject, and found virtually none, which leads me to wonder whether this subject would even meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I'm reluctant to unblock you simply to create advertisements about your own organization; are you interested in being unblocked on the condition that you avoid this subject and focus your volunteer work at Wikipedia on articles you don't have a direct connection with? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fisher Queen, and would like to add the following. I have looked through a substantial sample of your edits, and it seems that your primary, if not only, purpose in editing Wikipedia is advertising various people and organisations. Wikipedia is not a free advertising agency, and such editing is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies. I would therefore emphasise that Fisher Queen's "focus your volunteer work at Wikipedia on articles you don't have a direct connection with" would exclude editing other subjects to which you have a connection, not just the particular one she refers to. I see that you say that you "would like to contribute to and improve articles on international law, human rights and family law". This would be very different from your past editing, which has largely consisted of writing glowing prose about particular individuals and organisations, mostly (though not all) lawyers and law firms. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Stern

[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William Stern, 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. --DeLarge (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited William Stern (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergen-Belsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [http://goo.gl/HNOtY Google search IAML strap line}
  2. ^ McCarthy
  3. ^ Personal Profile - see last line
  4. ^ Intute
  5. ^ Collaborative Forun
  6. ^ HG Legal Directory
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Londongreek&oldid=1079470087"