User talk:Mickiewicz

Peter Borish

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peter borish, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Peter_F._Borish.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter borish

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Peter borish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Borish

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Peter Borish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Scopecreep (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Peter Borish

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Peter Borish. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Peter Borish. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Peter Borish, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to AIV

Hi Mickiewicz, this is a notice to let you know that I have reported your removal of speedy deletion templates at Peter Borish to administrators. An administrator should assess the report in a short while, and they will take any appropriate actions. Please wait for an administrator before taking any further actions yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peter Borish

The article Peter Borish has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Scopecreep (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Peter Borish. 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. Alexf^(talk) 11:53, 2 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like you to unblock me because my actions were not malicious and were actually done in an attempt to respond to a copyright issue. I'm new at this (see my account - I have only one entry) and was trying to comply with the flags that the Wikipedia bots kept putting on the page suggesting copyright infringement by cutting and pasting the entire entry into a text editor on my local PC, editing out the (allegedly) infringing items and then pasting a new version back into Wikipedia without the copyright flags tags. I had to do this a few times in a row to determine which parts were triggering the copyright bot flags. I'm assuming that this is not standard protocol, but I also don't feel that blocking me is a fair or helpful remedy. If you notice, as a result of my edits, your bots no longer think this is a copyright infringement. Mickiewicz (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The bot gave you detailed warnings with links to relevant policies and still you didn't read them as evidenced by your attempts to work around bot's copyright violation detection instead of removing the infringing text. Max Semenik (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

MaxSem, I did not attempt to "work around" the detection. First of all. the material in question does not belong to the site to which your bot claims it belongs. It was written by the subject of the article that I am trying to create (Mr. Borish) and appears in the same or very similar form in many other websites *including ones mentioned in the references* so this is not a case of copyright infringement. Second, I remedied the (alleged) violation entirely by re-writing the bio entirely maintaining only a list of facts. I shouldn't have to do this, but I did. Thirdly, the violations to which you refer took place in the span of an hour when I was trying to edit a bio by removing and re-writing various parts of it You can tell that from the timestamps I would imagine. As a new user, how was I to know that the alerts were unique individual alerts and not simply the same one. I have to say that I find this to be most unfair and unwelcoming to a new user. I'm not spamming anyone. I'm not defaming anyone. I'm simply trying to create an entry for a friend - who is a very generous philanthropist. check the references :) - and to use the bio *he wrote and provided to the site that you say has copyright* It is sort of sad that I'm being treated like a criminal. I'll wait out your suspension, do my best not to run afoul of any other rules, but if this is the way you treat new users, I'm probably not going to contribute again. Can you blame me? Mickiewicz (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block has now expired. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2012 (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.

Hello, Mickiewicz, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I do have a good deal of sympathy with you. I know from when I first started editing Wikipedia that Wikipedia can seem a daunting place, with apparently arbitrary procedures. However, there are reasons why things work the way they do, and perhaps it may help a little if I try to explain a few things. Firstly, your understanding of copyright law does not seem to be very complete. The fact that content has been published in various places does not mean that it loses copyright, nor does the fact that you give references to those places. However, even if the copyright on the material has been waived, we still need evidence that it is so. Unfortunately, Wikipedia gets thousands of people coming here and posting copyright infringing material, and many of those people misrepresent the status of the material. We therefore cannot simply take the word of anyone who chooses to edit here for copyright. That is why we have a procedure for donating copyright, and you were given links to information about the procedure three times (see above). You were also repeatedly informed that removing the speedy deletion notice was unacceptable. Twice on this page you were given instructions how to contest the speedy deletion, in addition to the instructions repeatedly posted to the article itself. You were then given a warning that doing the same again would lead to a block. While I do accept that you were not acting maliciously, it is certainly not the case that your block came out of the blue, and you were given explanations as to what you could have done to avoid the block.

Writing an article about your friend may not be advisable. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and it can be difficult for someone closely involved with the subject of an article to stand back and see their own writing from the perspective of an uninvolved outsider, which often results in the appearance of promotional writing, even if that was not the intention. That is one of the reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages writing on such a subject. Also, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based essentially on a subject's having received a substantial amount of coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Whether a subject is noble or ignoble makes no difference, and being "a very generous philanthropist" is not a reason for having a Wikipedia article.

Finally, a few words of advice on how to proceed if you do wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia (which I hope you will). In my experience, people who dive straight into writing new articles very often have the sort of frustrating experience you have had. What I have seen over the years has convinced me that a far better approach is to start by looking at existing articles, and making minor edits to them, improving details here and there. That way, you can gradually learn how Wikipedia functions. Mistakes that you make (which you will make, as we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have lost significant amounts of work. After a while, when you have built up experience, and know better how things work here, you will be ready to write new articles. I am also posting a welcome message above, with links to various pages with further information. Don't try to read and learn everything before you do any more editing: there is far too much material there for you to do so. However, do have a look at the pages which seem most relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References for entry for Peter Borish biography

I am proactively stating that I intend to remove the following tags because I have added multiple reliable sources

{{Prod blp/dated|concern=All

Nomination of Peter Borish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Borish 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/Peter Borish (2nd 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. Meeanaya (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet

Sock-puppet of Borish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet of Peter Borish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]