User talk:Marium (ILAE-WiR)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Febrile seizure, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wgullyn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Febrile seizure—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wgullyn (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, you may be blocked from editing. –DMartin 08:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convulsion source question

Hi! I'm just wondering why you cited https://www.theindependentbd.com/magazine/details/105668/What-is-a-convulsion when it clearly states "Sources: verywell", and you could go instead work on getting the actual www.verywell health.com/what-is-a-convulsion-4144876 Verywell Health page cited, which is presumably the source of all reliable information republished by The Independent? There's a spam blacklist covering VeryWell right now, but that's something that can be worked around. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for updating me, yes I am also aware that Very Well has been blacklist for spamming, but I did not realize that it was same thing republished by The Independent. Thanks again for the information. Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and put in a request for that particular article to be unblocked so it can be cited directly, since the ability to see that it was written and reviewed by medical doctors certainly helps establish it as a proper medical source, rather than the product of a newspaper which is generally discouraged in medical articles per WP:MEDPOP. If there are other reliable sources you're looking to add that are blacklisted we should be able to get exceptions for them, so please feel free to ask for assistance. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again. Yes that would be nice, I will definitely search and if I anything will ask for assistance. Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - I just noticed that you have been adding some material sourced to https://healthtian.com/convulsion/, which doesn't look like a reliable source at all. It was written by Victor Anunobi, who, according to his Linkedin page, is "a product designer and content writer with a history of working in online media." For Convulsion and other similar articles, you should be following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I don't work much on medical articles, so I'm not the best source to review any specific source for reliability purposes. Other editors who work in WikiProject Medicine are going to be much more qualified than I am to help out with sourcing for the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations on Convulsion

I appreciate your contributions, but you need to slow down with your editing and familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the rules required to add content appropriately to Wikipedia. I've mentioned issues with sourcing above, but while looking at the article today I noticed a more serious issue.

In many of your recent contributions you copied or closely paraphrased the source for the information. For example, you wrote:

"When febrile convulsion has lasted more than five minutes then anticonvulsant medicine such as per rectal diazepam or buccal midazolam, may be needed to stop convulsion."

The source says:

"when they have lasted for more than five minutes, anticonvulsant medication, such as per rectal diazepam or buccal midazolam, may be needed to stop them".

I've bolded the identical words, but they don't have to be identical to still be a copyright violation. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions must be rewritten entirely from scratch or they 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your guidance regarding the edits, I will keep in mind for further edits, so that I wont violate the copyright.

thanks once again for your help. Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you think you can go through your existing contributions to see and correct where you have already copied or closely paraphrased the source, or will it be better to have a different pair of eyes looking at the edits? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I gat any help to identify the mistake it would be great, I will correct the edits as suggested. thanks Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a list of most of your contributions at User:VernoWhitney/Sandbox4 and started working through them. I picked Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy because it had the least number of edits, and I went through them line-by-line. I know you've been working on these articles for a while, but after I compared each sentence to its source, I was left with only these changes to the article within the past 6+ months that weren't nearly word-for-word copies from the source. This appears to be almost all of your edits, which makes it untenable for me to point each sentence and source out individually. I will look over Convulsion this week. This close paraphrase copyright violation is likely keep occurring if you are attempting to take information from a source a single sentence at a time (this is not just you -- I can't work well from sources one sentence at a time). Maybe reading WP:FIXCLOSEPARA would help you going forward? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing close paraphrase issues

Hello again. It's been about a month and I'm afraid I got sidetracked and didn't follow up with your work as closely as I perhaps should have. I happened to notice today that you are now editing Idiopathic generalized epilepsy. I'm afraid there are still close paraphrase copyright concerns with the material you are contributing.

For example, you wrote:

"Among all epilepsy, Idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) is very common. It affects around 20–40% of all epilepsies. The clinical characteristics of IGE are absence seizures, myoclonic seizures, and tonic-clonic seizures."

The source says:

Idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE) is a common form of epilepsy, accounting for 20–40% of all epilepsies. IGE is clinically characterised by absence, myoclonic seizures, and tonic–clonic seizures"

As before, I've bolded the identical words for emphasis, but they do not need to be identical to be problematic. Do you understand why this is a problem and that it needs to stop? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will complete the article then again go for through review again, and update it accordingly. I will make sure will violate any copyright concern.

Thanks Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, have you read the policies, guidelines, and essays I linked you to above? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, you have really gone through all the article I have updated whether those are violated copy right issue or not? or simply it is edited by me that is the reason you had all my contribution as you get few identical or close paraphrase with the source articles?

First of all I wanted to let you know that Ferbrile Seizure, Childhood absence epilepsy, Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy all are peer reviewed by the epilepsy experts and I was editing their contributions. I do not think there should be any copyright issues.

Secondly these are all part the project we are working and by deleting all the edits you made it very difficult for me to proceed further.

Thirdly I had already mentioned that after I edit it will go through the peer review process and I will make sure there will be no violation but still blocked my account and made very very very difficult.

I had to again edit all the articles that you have deleted which is really a painful task and create backlog in my project.

I hope this will not create any confusion.

Thanks for your attention. Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were issues with your contributions to all of those articles. Given how pervasive the problems were with the first two articles I reviewed, and upon advice from another administrator who also works with copyrights here, I did not continue to spend hours more of my time checking each of your individual contributions. The articles are not currently peer reviewed by epilepsy experts--that's simply not how Wikipedia works. If I'm misunderstanding, and you're instead saying that the material you are adding is from epilepsy experts, then I'll trust that (I'm not familiar enough with the journals to know which are reliable and which are not without more research), but that has absolutely no bearing on any copyright issues.

The block was intended to get your attention and make it difficult for you to proceed further without addressing this situation. You can not contribute copyright-violating material to Wikipedia with the intent to clean it up later. Your continuing addition of problematic material without first addressing the earlier content you added is what led to this situation.

I understand and agree that the articles you are working on are in need of improvement, and I honestly do appreciate the efforts of the ILAE Wikipedia Project, but I'm afraid that a backlog in your project is simply not my concern. My concern is keeping Wikipedia in good standing regarding copyrights. I hope that you have now read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding this and have taken them to heart. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, Marium (ILAE-WiR). 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. Thank you. CandyScythe (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Epilepsy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. I am referring to this remark you added to the article: "The International League against Epilepsy has recently taken the massive and commendable task of ...". Wikipedians in residence must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your repeated violations of our copyright policy, not revoking your editing privileges is inconsistent with policy and my duty to protect the encyclopedia. As usual, you can appeal - but you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that you understand why what you did is wrong and how your editing will change in response. MER-C 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this, but I have edited and added the content I received from various epilepsy experts and I am sure I have not used any promotional content or as I thought, as it is mentioned the article is part of "The International League against Epilepsy" project and being the Wikipedians in residence I have received various contents from different epilepsy experts to edit in wikipedia.

so from now I will double check the content too after get this from various experts. I would request you to unblock y account so that I can continue my work as WIR. Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for violating our copyright policy, not promotional editing. As said, you can appeal as described above - and that is the only way you can get unblocked. MER-C 16:24, 1 June 2023 (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).

Marium (ILAE-WiR) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would request you to unblock y account so that I can continue my work as Wikipedian in residence as a part of the ongoing project conducted by "The International League against Epilepsy", I will take care of the policies I have violated and also apologize for the inconvenience, I will be more careful now onwards

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:43, 1 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.

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).

Marium (ILAE-WiR) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or *the block is no longer necessary because *# I understand what I have been blocked for, *# I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and *# I will make useful contributions instead.

Decline reason:

It's better not to request unblock at all then simply copy and paste text from the denial template. You look so unserious about this when you do that. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 4 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.

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).

Marium (ILAE-WiR) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would request you to unblock my account so that I can continue my work as a Wikipedian in residence as a part of the ongoing project conducted by "The International League Against Epilepsy", I will take care of the policies I have violated and also apologize for the inconvenience, I will be more careful now onwards. I understand that my account has been blocked for violating copy right and I will take care of that from now on so that nothing can harm the harmony of the Wikipedia and also make useful contribution which also the part of the ILAE WIKI project.

Decline reason:

This is insufficient. You're going to need to demonstrate that you understand copyright by telling us in your own words what copyright is, what Wikipedia's license is, and when and how copyrighted content may be used on Wikipedia. I am declining your request. I suggest you make the next one a good one, as you are running out of chances. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 6 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.

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).

Marium (ILAE-WiR) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would request you to unblock my account so that I can continue my work as a Wikipedian in residence as a part of the on-going project conducted by "The International League Against Epilepsy", I will take care of the policies I have violated and also apologize for the inconvenience, I will be more careful now onwards. I understand that my account has been blocked for violating copy right, which (copyright) is the ownership of one’s intellectual possessions. The licences in Wikipedia are CC BY SA 3.0 and GFDL. The content used in Wikipedia is copyrighted and using content abruptly which doesn’t belong to the Wikipedia licence are copyright violation that happened in my case. I will take care of that from now on so that nothing can harm the harmony of the Wikipedia and also make useful contribution which also the part of the ILAE WIKI project.

Decline reason:

This doesn't demonstrate any understanding of compatible licensing and attribution, fair use, appropriate paraphrasing, etc. I am not comfortable unblocking your account at this time. Spicy (talk) 11:37, 8 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.

Noting here that I have just blocked Marium Umme Kulsum as obvious block evasion. Marium, if you use new accounts to evade this block you will only decrease your chance of getting unblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2023 (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).

Marium (ILAE-WiR) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would request you to unblock my account so that I can continue my work as a Wikipedian in residence as a part of the on-going project conducted by "The International League Against Epilepsy", I will take care of the policies I have violated and also apologize for the inconvenience, I will be more careful now onwards. I understand that my account has been blocked for violating copyright, which (copyright) is the ownership of one’s intellectual possessions. The licences in Wikipedia are CC BY SA 3.0 and GFDL. The content used in Wikipedia is copyrighted and using content abruptly which doesn’t belong to the Wikipedia licence are copyright violation that happened in my case. I will take care of that from now on so that nothing can harm the harmony of Wikipedia and also make useful contributions which also part of the ILAE WIKI project. I have been requesting for the same for several times and its drastically affects the ILAE projects but NO A SINGLE PERSON is understanding the crisis, I am saying this constantly the articles are being evaluated by the reviewers they are giving their much time for the wiki but that is also not being understandable for any of you not even a single of the reviewers are giving the proper evaluation when I am following comments of the reviewers it was being rejected by another, I am absolutely not understanding what is going on and strangely finding everyone very rude here

Decline reason:

If you're going to sockpuppet, you can try the standard offer in six months. And you can do that via WP:UTRS, since I will be revoking access to this talk page. Note that if you create any more socks or otherwise attempt to evade the block, that resets the six month clock and decreases the chance that you ultimately would be unblocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 3 July 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.