Jump to content

User talk:Noodleki/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Noodleki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wafflepwn.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wafflepwn.com

A tag has been placed on Wafflepwn.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Greatest freak out ever

You just deleted this page, after it was nominated for deletion a week ago. That's fine, but I think I'm at least entitled to an explanation given the work that I put into it. The reason given, was lack of notability, yet I referenced many reliable sources that write on the subject, including dailykos, huffington post, know your meme, giantbomb and others. How does that not establish notability. Specifically, could you point me to the section of the wiki guidelines that justify its deletion. ThankyouNoodleki (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." - direct quote. That's exactly what happened here.Noodleki (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happy that my closure reflected the consensus of the discussion and you are welcome to list at WP:DRV if you disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Arthur Keith.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Arthur Keith.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

  1. Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
  2. Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:John Graunt.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Max Perutz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Max Perutz.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:John Bowlby.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Spearman.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Maynardsmith.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did with File:Maynardsmith.jpg. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Donald Winnicott.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Gunter.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gunter.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

  1. Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
  2. Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Georgegreen.jpg

Hello, Noodleki!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Georgegreen.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Dennis Ritchie. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited John Cabot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII (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) 10:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

April 22 2012 - Citation of Dr. Hooke's 1684 work in the Heliograph Article

You added "Robert Hooke invented a rudimentary heliograph in 1684." to the Heliograph article, but I think Dr. Hooke's 1684 contribution was a semaphore, not a heliograph, for the reasons I present below.

If you agree, will you please revert your edit? And if not, reply on my Talk page? Thanks!

Hooke's distance signaling method of 1684 was not a heliograph system, because it did not use the reflection of sun off of mirrors.

Hooke's 1684 method used large wooden letters by day ([1], page 149, Figure 2) and patterns of light by night ([1], page 150).

Hooke's system was thus a semaphore system rather than a heliograph, and has been properly credited as such in the history section of the Semaphore line article in Wikipedia.

I did read through the entirety of Hooke's original presentation of May 21, 1684 [1], and see no mention nor discussion of mirrors. If I simply overlooked the relevant text, please point me to it. Macchess (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 

[1] "Dr. Hook's Discourse to the Royal Society, May 21, 1684, showing
        a way how to communicate on's Mind at great Distances" in
        Philosophical experiments and observations of the late eminent 
        Dr. Robert Hooke, S.R.S. and Geom. Prof. Gresh., and other eminent 
        virtuoso's in his time, William Derham, 1726, pages 142-150.
        http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWhYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA142&dq=hook
Per your reply on my Talk Page, and after checking two other works specializing in the history of telecommunications (below), I have removed the reference to Hooke in the Heliograph article - Thanks!Macchess (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
[1] "Communications: An International History of the Formative Years"
       Volume 32 of History of Technology Series, Author	R. W. Burns, 2004
     http://books.google.com/books?id=7eUUy8-VvwoC&pg=PA29&dq=hooke+1684+semaphore
     
[2] Military Communications: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century, By Christopher H. Sterling
     2008, page 377, bottom of column 1
    http://books.google.com/books?id=RBC2nY1rp5MC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=hooke+semaphore+1684

September 2012

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at 1913. Such attempts to avoid detection, or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Savile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your addition to Advertising has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

2 problems with your work

The first is that I'm finding copyright violations and the second is where you are cutting and pasting sections of other articles without attribution. For example, you did not write this, you have copyvios here and this is also a cut & paste move. There is a copyright on this page that you copied text from. Stop copying at all please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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 appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have copied text verbatim from this website which is copyright Karina Wilson. Restoring it was a mistake especially when one considers the difficulties you've had in this area.

With regards to copying text within Wikipedia, you would need to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to understand that what you are doing is wrong. You did not write it so that falls back as plagiarism on your head when you fall to attribute it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In plain language, if you copy within Wikipedia, make sure that you note in the edit summary or on the talk page that you have done this, and indicate the source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

I restored the text that was taken from the article on Pears Company not the text from the website. It would be nice if you weren't so irresponsible and had actually bothered to check what I had done instead of blocking me for copyright violation which I didn't do. With regards to attribution I can add in a hyperlink if that makes you happy. In the meantime can you unblock me. An apology would be nice as well.Noodleki (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is from here. While the most recent additions to Advertising may have been copied from a Wikipedia article, that was unquestionably taken from another site, and you still have other edits to the advertising article which are copyvios. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

This is absurd and I am extremely upset at the way I am being treated. Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website, secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway! The advertising article is also from another wiki article yet you claim without basis it comes from somewhere else; I said before I'm happy to put in an attribution to the editor on that page. You then mention I have violated copyright before. I was not aware of the stringent rules wikipedia appears to have adopted, I have been doing this for some time now with no problems ever coming up - if it has now been deemed as problematic then I will happily desist from doing so in the future, however all I am trying to do at the moment, is to supplement existing articles with relevant material from other wikipedia pages which is allowed (with attribution). Why do you not give me the benefit of the doubt?Noodleki (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are so many things wrong with your logic that I don't have to review your edits. "Firstly, I had no idea that the Halifax gibbet article was taken from another website ..." That alone wouldn't have been a problem, although we do prefer editors to be more careful. "... secondly if material from that website was put into the original article clearly there ISN'T a problem of copyright anyway." Yes there is. Previously copyrighted material does not lose its copyright by virtue of being included, with or without permission, in other copyrighted material. We have had policies on copying within Wikipedia for a very long time ... feel free to read them at your leisure. The fact that no one had complained about this before does not make it any less problematic, as copyright is not just a policy but one we are required to have due to the existence of actual laws outside of Wikipedia in the real world. And laches estoppel does not apply here. None of this would matter, however, if you hadn't taken such a combative tone. That, more than anything else, tells us you won't work well with other editors. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am sorry if I have come across as combative, I am just rather upset about the way in which I am being treated. I actually researched the history of the article on the gibbet, and incredibly, it turns out that the text there was original and written out by the user Malleus Fatuorum http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halifax_Gibbet&dir=prev&offset=20110517223837&action=history over a long period of time: presumably the external article simply took that from wikipedia. So I'm being accused of copyright infringement for copying text from wikipedia without knowing that it was elsewhere on the web and to top it all, the external source is the one that copied the info from wikipedia. I reiterate that I was not aware of the stringent copyright rules previously, but I will be happy to abide by them now that I have been made aware in such a brutal fashion. I can also reiterate that copying within wikipedia is allowed with user attribution which is what I will do. I am simply astonished that virtually without warning I was summarily blocked indefinitely after I supplemented two articles with important and relevant information from elsewhere in wikipedia. I hope this doesn't sound "combative". May I also point out that although I don't consider myself as an editor, I have been correcting errors and similar operations for a long time now in what I believe is for the good of wikipedia and those that it serves. Please don't spontaneously reject this appeal again - I have apologized and promised not to copy copyright material again - is that not good enough? Do we believe in a second chance?Noodleki (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thanks for that calm and reasonable appeal, and apologies that it went unnoticed - cockup rather than conspiracy I promise! Copyright issues are always complex here and you are not the first person to have fallen foul of them - as you say, it's even more complicated when external sites copy WP articles as it muddies the water. I'm happy to unblock and will keep an eye on your talk page to try and help out if I can. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


So you're just not going to bother to respond? What a travesty and a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not active enough in areas of copyright policy to properly evaluate your request - but I will post a note over at the Administrator's Noticeboard indicating that this unblock request has been sitting for a while. I must add, however, that a 10 day lack of action may indicate that there are no admins willing to unblock. Worst case, someone will come over and say so. Best case, however, is that someone evaluates your situation on the merits and tells you how to proceed. That might include "Stay blocked for a while" or "Show that you can edit within policy" or some such. But I leave that to them. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banknote, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Exchange and William III (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) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greek War of Independence

Also Armenia did not achieve independence within Turkey's territory... --E4024 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban renewal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gibbs (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) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cemetery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath (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) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1934

Hi. I am reverting your edit until you can show me where the matter regarding the above article has been resolved at WikiProject Years. 5000+ bytes of text is a lot to remove without consensus. Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please indicate the precise URL; I am checking this and I don't see where a consensus was reached regarding changes to 1934. Maybe my eyes are bad, but the project refers to 1929 and the 1340s. So please show me where there was consensus to remove 5000+ bytes of text. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to this page, there is no consensus for your editing as far as I can tell, just two comments, one from an unregistered IP user. Quis separabit? 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

(edit conflict) Hi there. I reviewed your edits at 1934, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, helicopter, and other articles and have blocked your account for 31 hours for edit-warring and disruptive, combative editing. This has already happened before in recent times. One editor above has tried his best to discuss the matter with you, but you refuse to engage. Please take some time to collaborate with the other editors here, and discuss matters when there is a dispute. Edit-warring, as you've done, will just mean you'll get blocked - Alison ❤ 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Quis separabit? 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air ambulance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sikorsky (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) 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


After unblock

I recommend that after you are unblocked, you:

  • 1) STOP SCREAMING in your edit summaries
  • 2) Get another editor (or other editors) to support your positions on 1934, which you have not yet been able to do, to indicate some kind of consensus-building.

Good luck, Quis separabit? 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kindergarten, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://socialist-courier.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/robert-owen-and-new-lanark.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Kindergarten saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Veterinary physician, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://scienceray.com/biology/a-brief-history-of-veterinary-medicine/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Veterinary physician saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Veterinary medicine, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.veterinaryhistorysociety.org.uk/press.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Veterinary medicine saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Psychonaut (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Noodleki. 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. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The CCI case has now been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki. We very much appreciate your efforts at rewriting the three articles mentioned elsewhere on this user talk page; I'm sure an administrator will review them soon and update the corresponding articles. Would you be able to help us locate and correct further problems? You are free to help out on the investigation page, where all your substantial edits are listed. For example, it would be a tremendous help if you could go through some or all of them and, for those ones where you remember copying from a particular source, indicate this on the list. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing copyvio templates

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Kindergarten and Veterinary physician. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at a temporary page (e.g., Talk:Kindergarten/Temp). If you continue to remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. I understand you were trying to rewrite the articles to remove the infringing text. This is great, but please follow the instructions on the template in the section titled "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material…". The rewritten version should be placed on a separate page. Do not remove the copyright violation template! As it conspicuously states at the top, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Psychonaut (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

[Max Müller

I have reverted your unexplained edit at Max Müller You added that he was British? He was born in Dessau Germany to German parents, am I missing something?Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Which specific edits does this warning apply to? If it's the temp pages he created to rewrite copyright-infringing articles, then this warning is made in error. Those pages are intended for an administrator to copy over the infringing article while leaving its contribution history in place. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It is concerning Preschool education, where he copied the same text in which it appears that you have placed a copyvio notice over in Kindergarten. I'm still trying to figure it out, because, long story short, I mis-looked at diffs and incorrectly thought he was restoring content instead of just adding the same content. Since that is the case, it appears to be just another instance of the same copyvio issue and not an attribution issue. Sorry about that. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breathalyzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 11:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Thomas Wood
Radio astronomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Titan
Suburb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tudor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Consumerism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Britain, Strand, Robert Cecil and Lionel Cranfield
Department store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to John Lewis and James Kennedy
Elevator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to William Armstrong

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for finding a source for Playground. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Public sphere

Please refrain from edit warring and take your case to the talk page of the article as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Freak show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairground and Charles I
Female education (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Casterton
Propaganda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to M17

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Thomas Cook into another page. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Coffeehouse into another page. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Public sphere. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samuel Wilderspin into another page. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked II

You have been blocked indefinitely (again) for persistent copyright violations in the face of numerous warnings. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

To reviewing admin: please see also this ANI thread Bishonen | talk 23:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

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).

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

Request reason:

Could you give me an example of a copyright violation? The kindergarten and preschool articles are a matter of not making an attribution - something which I have since corrected, and the vet medicine and the former two, which both happened over a month ago, were both tagged and I have submitted a replacement text, although nothing has yet been done. Since 11 January, I have made lots of what I think are useful edits, and I have taken great care not to copy text over from other sources, but to rewrite it in my own words. Why are you penalizing me now for violations committed over a month ago, since tagged, when since then, (you can check) I have made sure not to commit any violations. Noodleki (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I checked, and I see more copying without attribution, which is WP:COPYVIO, and particularly disturbing due to its having come after several cautions and warnings about that exact matter - and still being denied that there is an issue in this very unblock request. I also see a combative, uncivil attitude torwards editing and other editors which also needs to be addressed. The Bushranger One ping only 11:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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 has been explained to you several times (first, perhaps, back in October in the section #2 problems with your work and most recently today at #February 2013) that copying text without attribution is a copyright violation, even if that text is from another Wikipedia article. Nearly all text in Wikipedia is under copyright, and licensed under terms which require that the authors be conspicuously and correctly credited. Your latest edits today to Preschool education and Kindergarten copied text from other Wikipedia articles without attribution. You must have known that this was not permitted, and what the proper way of providing attribution was, yet you did it anyway. Psychonaut (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not denying there is a problem. I may be wrong, but I always thought that there was a difference between copying from external sources which is copyvio to internal copying. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the attribution required for internal copying was more of a courtesy than a legal requirement. Again, if I am wrong and the attribution thing is just as important then I will take that on board, I just didn't realise that it was of such importance (Text on wikipedia is not copyright, as far as I'm aware). If I had known, then it wouldn't have been difficult to simply add the name in my contribution - although I did in fact put in attributions quite a few times. Since Jan, I haven't made external copyright violations, in accordance with what I was told - some attributions were not made, but again, I was simply not aware of the importance of it. What I find upsetting, is that I have made what I think are quite a few useful and informative edits - I am not doing this with evil and bad intentions; I am not being paid - I'm just trying to help improve wikipedia. Incidentally, I did put an attribution for Preschool Education but it was reverted. In summary, I thought that only external sources are copyvios, which is why I have made sure not to make those violations for the last month, I was simply unaware that attribution is equally serious. Clearly I am telling the truth - if I had known it was important then it would have been extremely easy to simply mention the attribution; I didn't, just because I didn't think it was so important. Now that I know its' importance I will make sure in the future not to make the same mistake again, just as I did with external copyvios. I hope you believe in my sincerity and take into account the fact that I don't have malicious intent and that I'm just trying to improve the content. Noodleki (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Over the course of your previous block, you were already pointed towards WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which very clearly explains that text on Wikipedia is copyrighted and that attribution is mandatory. No matter how this is being interpreted, you either did not read the guideline at all, read it and forgot about it, or just plain ignored it. It is not within my remit to guess which of these is correct, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Good faith editors contribute to Wikipedia freely with very little compensation, but one of them is to get credit where credit is due. I am therefore declining your request on the grounds that I am not convinced that you fully measure the importance of respecting the copyrights of others, regardless of whether their work was published here or elsewhere. MLauba (Talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

Text on Wikipedia is copyrighted by whoever wrote it, under the GNU Free Documentation and CC-By-SA 3.0 licenses. You still need to provide attribution for copying from other Wikipedia sources. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If you hold to the belief that "text on Wikipedia is not copyright", despite the fact that since October 2012 at least six different users have explained to you on at least eight occasions why this is not true, then you are not competent to edit here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? I am happy to accept that it is copyright and I will refrain from not adding an attribution in the future - I was not aware, that it was an offence as opposed to a courtesy. So, no, I do not now hold to the belief that text is not copyright.Noodleki (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Again, I did not realise attribution was so serious. You imply that you don't believe me, but consider this: if I was aware of the importance of attribution, why would I not have done so? It requires minimal effort to find the username who originally wrote it, and it would have been very easy for me to put in an attribution. There is no malicious motive on my part for failing to do so - I'm not trying to 'steal' anyone's work as it is clear that it has just been copied over - surely the only plausible reason that I left it out on occasion, was because I simply wasn't aware of its' importance. You say you are not convinced that I will respect the copyright. Since Jan, I have made sure not to commit external copyvios once this was made fully clear to me - surely that indicates that I am capable of learning to respect copyvios. This also required a complete rewording of the gist of what the sources said, - a far more time consuming task than just adding an attribution, yet I did it anyway. As I have said, I am perfectly willing to add attributions for further edits - why not give me a chance and see if I keep to my word? If I don't, you can simply block me again.Noodleki (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been given chances, and have been blocked again. That card isn't going to work twice. Copyright is a very similar matter; I believe you understand that, but I do not see anything here to indicate that you understand much else about it. I agree with Kim's comment below that I do not believe this to be willful or malicious ignorance, but nonetheless you simply do not understand how this works despite having been given numerous chances and advice on the subject. Until you can demonstrate that you fully understand how copyright and licensing work and how they apply to Wikipedia, I do not believe that you should be unblocked. Given your history with this, that demonstration would need to be very convincing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

I unblocked you last year but I'm not going to do so at this time. Your contribs since January 2012 have been littered with copyvio problems as this page testifies. With regard to the specific issue of within-Wiki attribution, you were told in no uncertain terms as far back as September last year that you were not editing correctly. Specifically, you were told "With regards to copying text within Wikipedia, you would need to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to understand that what you are doing is wrong. You did not write it so that falls back as plagiarism on your head when you fall to attribute it." That section has been linked at least four more times since then, including just before your latest block. I'm always one to give people a last chance, as my unblock last year demonstrates. But you've demonstrated a complete unwillingness or inability to read and abide by rules that have been pointed out to you many, many times. I personally have no faith that things will change. I'll leave it to any other admin with more trust than me to unblock you - or not. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I thought the main problem for wikipedia was copying from external sources, I assumed internal copying required attribution as something of a courtesy. Attribution was pointed out to me as a sort of adjunct to the main copyvio issue. Again, I ask you to think: if you think I'm lying and I was aware of the importance of attribution, why wouldn't I have made attributions? It's a very simple thing to do. Don't you think it's more likely that I am genuinely telling the truth?

Again, if I fail to make attributions from now on, you can block me indefinitely - it's a win-win situation to give me a chance.Noodleki (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, on balance I don't think you are lying. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I think after the crystal clear and explicit warning noted above, your inability to comply makes this more of a competence issue. You're quite right that ignorance of the facts or mistaken assumptions can be instantly remedied. We've tried that to no good effect. What I think we are left with is that you are actually unable to understand the instructions you are given and that's not a problem that can be overcome immediately. I shan't post further here unless invited as I don't want to hound you or repeat myself ad nauseam. If you do find an admin willing to unblock, I strongly suggest you seek some mentorship or refrain from any copying of text from one article to another in future. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're reading what I'm saying properly. The previous block was primarily about external copyvios - something which has been remedied since Jan - clearly I was capable of implementing that. Now that I am aware of the importance of attribution, I will do that as well. Do you think I am capable of editing encyclopedia articles but simply intellectually incapable of adding an attribution? In fact, I have added quite a few attributions already such as at Museum. Can you not see that this was a misunderstanding- I thought the main issue was external copyvios not internal ones. Now, this is clear to me and I am even capable of implementing it. Surely I can at least have a trial period.Noodleki (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You have not made one single correct attribution since you have come off the previous block. This edit summary "Attributed to the great Emma Ephemera - God bless her. Let everyone sing her praise", which you made only two days ago, indicates that you had still not read a single word of the guidance pages you have been directed to multiple times. This is not the way attribution is made here. Attribution is made in an edit summary via an explicit statement that the text was copied and a link to the Wikipedia article from which it was copied—not via a sarcastic comment about a specific editor. I see no indication whatsoever in that edit summary of two days ago that you are willing to take this seriously, to read the guidance pages, and equally importantly, to interact with other editors in a collegiate manner. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm the target of such hostility - I thought I had read that the author/s should be mentioned in the edit summary, which is what I did on a few occasions as mentioned before - if that is not sufficient, then I apologize. Would "copied from <name of article> be sufficient, then? Again, is it that you don't believe me when I say that I wasn't fully aware of a) the importance of attribution and b) the correct way of doing it? If you do believe me, then why don't you give me a chance to prove it?Noodleki (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you have to even ask what constitutes sufficient attribution shows that you still haven't read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia or any of the {{uw-copying}} messages posted here. And nobody is being hostile to you here; as far as I can see people have been very polite in explaining to you why you were blocked and why you are remaining blocked. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And how do I demonstrate it while blocked? Why not unblock me and see. If I commit the same offences, then block me, but if not then all is good. I have tried to explain countless times that the original block was primarily about external copyright which is something I have since rectified while this one is about attribution which I thought was just a courtesy. Why can't I just be given a trial period - isn't that reasonable. It's also pretty weird that I have to beg to be allowed to expand wikipedia in my own time for no money, but there you go.Noodleki (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For a start, you can stop making excuses like "while this one is about attribution which I thought was just a courtesy", as if this is all new to you, which is patently untrue. On September 23, 2012, you were first pointed to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia after you violated our attribution policy. Had you read that page you would have known that correct attribution is not "just a courtesy", it is a requirement. You were pointed to it again on September 24, 2012 by the blocking administrator. You were unblocked on 5 October 2012 and on October 7, 2012 you went ahead and copied text from Norman Cross into Prisoner of war without attribution [1]. You continued to do this for months.
You were warned again on February 17, 2013 concerning your unattributed copying from Thomas Cook and Coffeehouse and were again given the link to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Despite that, you went ahead on February 20, 2013 and copied once again without attribution [2]. You were reverted and told to read the guidelines. Instead, you re-added it with a sarcastic and totally inadequate edit summary [3], again demonstrating that you had still refused to read them.
Re your comment: "It's also pretty weird that I have to beg to be allowed to expand wikipedia in my own time for no money." You might want to think of the dozens of hours editors are now having to spend, in their own time and for no money, to clean up the mess you've made, time they could have spent expanding Wikipedia. Then it wouldn't seem weird at all. If you are serious about wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, undertake to refrain from copying from any Wikipedia articles (not even with attribution) for at least one year and undertake to contribute only completely original, well-referenced, content. An administrator might unblock you on those terms. Otherwise, I highly doubt it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

In the intervening period, I have made edits which my brother has put up on his account User:Noodle90, which as far as I understand is allowed. These edits have no copright violations and they have attributions to the best of my knowledge. On the guide to appealing blocks, it says that the user has to show "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". I now understand about copyvios and attribution and will not do it again - the evidence is in the proxy edits - I wish to make productive edits in the future, that is all. Someone has also reverted this hard work, despite there being no problem with it as this user was kind enough to point out. Again, I am sorry for the offences in the past, I pledge not to commit them in the future and to make productive edits. If I fail in this then I can be blocked again. Thank you for your consideration. Noodleki (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Proving your cause with sock/meat puppets wasn't the smartest move, and even this way you still managed to violate the attribution policy. Enough is enough, I've revoked your right to post more unblock requests. You still may appeal via WP:UTRS or WP:BASC, however I suggest you to think seriously about your attitude towards our rules first. Just denying and lying doesn't work. Max Semenik (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

I do not believe your understanding of our blocking policy to be correct. However, even if it is, this edit by Noodle90 appears to infringe upon the copyright to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid as it copies and pastes text from that article without any attribution whatsoever. So it seems that, contrary to your claim, you have continued your copyright violations through your sock/meatpuppet. Psychonaut (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find you an interesting person. Clearly, to find that out, you must have painstakingly gone through all of the edits, checking each one for violations. You didn't find any. You checked for no attributions. Out of many, many correct attributions, you finally (after some time) manage to find one, which I unfortunately overlooked. You then revert all of my hard work, sourced, informative, useful; despite knowing (as you had checked so hard for misdemeanour) that they were all fine, despite even being told so by this user, despite the guidelines only calling for a revert when the edits are disruptive. Do you understand that some considerable work went into it? Why are you doing this? Do you take pleasure in it? Do you not like me? Are you happy with just destroying my work for no good reason? Why are you on Wikipedia? Is it to improve this site, or is to make other people miserable? You have been targeting me now, for months. It was probably you who asked an administrator to run the check as well.Noodleki (talk)
Yes, at least eight editors are painstakingly going over all your edits and checking them all for violations at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki. As you can see from the work carried out so far, most of them do indeed constitute copyright infringement. Given that you have persisted in copyright infringement after your blocks, and due to your sheer number of edits, it is no longer worth our time to assume competence or good faith on your part. Most of your sock/meatpuppet edits were therefore indiscriminately reverted as provided by our policy WP:EVASION. Those with intervening edits have been added to the CCI case. Please don't create further work for us by continuing to post material in evasion of your block. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Checkuser has identified that you have created User:Noodle90 as a sock. While blocked, you may not create another account to edit from. This will only make it less likely that you will ever be unblocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Rutland concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Rutland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access restored by BASC

This user appealed their block to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). We decided that, rather than hear the appeal, we would restore talk page access to the user's account, in order to allow them to appeal their block to the community. I have now implemented that decision, but wish to state for the record that it comes with the following caveats.

  • The subcommittee has not considered the substance of the appeal originally sent to us. This action does not mean we do or do not endorse the appeal.
  • Talk page access has been restored with absolutely no prejudice to it being revoked again, in the event of (further) misuse of the talk page by this user. Any uninvolved administrator should feel free to revoke TP access, if necessary, without wondering whether they are legitimately reverting a committee action.

For the subcommittee, AGK [•] 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi, I was banned over six months ago for copyright violations and failing to make the correct attributions. I am sorry, both for the violation of the rules of the encyclopedia, and for the unnecessary time that other users had to spend on rectifying my errors. I would like to submit an appeal for a second chance after the six month period that has recently elapsed as per Wikipedia:Standard offer. I pledge, as far as I am able, not to commit these offenses in my future edits, to abide by the rules of the encyclopedia and to work constructively with other people. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept reason:

Based on the discussion at WP:AN, I am unblocking your account. This unblock is subject to two conditions. Firstly, you must undertake to refrain from from copying text from any Wikipedia article (regardless of attribution) until the backlog at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki has been cleared. Secondly, you are expected to provide assistance to the volunteers attempting to clear that backlog, by identifying the unattributed sources of the edits listed there.
You are on pretty thin ice here - this is probably the last time the community is likely to accept an unblock request from you. If you are found to have made any copyright violations (of outside sources or Wikipedia's own text) or operated any illegitimate accounts after this date, any administrator is free to restore the indefinite block, and it is very unlikely to be lifted again. This is your last chance; screw up again and you won't be coming back. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You did not specifically address the reasons for your block. Could you reply with 1) an explanation for what you did wrong that led to the block, and 2) what you will do if unblocked to make sure the issue does not reoccur? Monty845 23:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the first block (September 2012) was due to persistent copyright violations and the second block (February 2013) was primarily about not attributing material from other wikipedia articles to their creator. The issues that I could have solved sensibly, escalated, resulting in a permanent ban.

With regards to the future; I now fully understand the policy on copyright violations and attribution, something which I wasn't completely clear on earlier, and I pledge as far as I am able to a) abide by these rules (as well as all others) in my edits, b) to rectify my past violations as soon as possible and c) to work constructively with other editors.

Thank you for your time.Noodleki (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noodleki. If you're unblocked (or even if you're not), could you help us identify the remaining unattributed sources of copying at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki? We still have a lot of work left to do there, but it could go much faster with your input. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you correct any copyright violations made by the Noodle90 account? Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would try to rectify those edits (on both accounts) as soon as possible.Noodleki (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clear the backlog. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of journalism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • "A current of General News" was published and distributed in England<ref name="aboutenglish.it">{{cite web|url=http://www.aboutenglish.it/englishpress/journalismage.htm|title=The Age of Journalism</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Max Schiemann opened the world's first passenger-carrying trolleybus in 1901 near [[Dresden]]), in Germany. Although this system operated only until 1904, Schiemann had developed what is now

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Department store may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and scientific exhibits; - in 1909, [[Louis Blériot]]'s [[monoplane]] was exhibited at Selfridges (he was the first to fly over the [[English Channel]], and the first public demonstration of [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ball bearing may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • first modern ball-bearing design, with the ball running along a groove in the axle assembly.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intechbearing.com/5200Series-DoubleRowAngularContactBallBearings-
  • {{Main|Rolling-element bearing#Designation|l1=Rolling-element bearing > Designation}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Consumer revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • products and the spread and importance of consumption fashions became steadily more important.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.quarc.de/fileadmin/downloads/Coming%20to%20live%20in%20a%20consumer%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Archery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Steve, et al.|year=2008|publisher=The Lyons Press|isbn=978-0-9645741-6-8|postscript=<!--none-->}}</ref><ref name="kroeber">{{citation|title=Ishi in Two Worlds: a biography of the last wild Indian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Propaganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis Dodd (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) 12:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Building code (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Drain
Icebreaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Oranienbaum
Philanthropy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dark Ages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

History of childhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Enlightenment and Sickness
Urban planning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Pullman and New Liberalism
Childhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Enlightenment
Children's literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kidnapped
Key (lock) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Relocker
Lock (device) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Relocker
Public housing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Charles Booth
Urban design (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New Liberalism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Political party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Jacobite, Conservative Party and William Wyndham
Two-party system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Conservative Party, George I and William Wyndham
Department store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pall Mall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Couple of things

The ordering of section is mentioned in WP:MEDMOS. Also some of your refs are not suitable. For example this blog is not good enough [4]. Additionally the main article has summarizes with further details in the sub article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR

You have made your third revert. Another may result in losing your ability to edit. Please get consensus on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are continuing to violate Wikipedia's licensing requirements

You are continuing to violate Wikipedia's licensing requirements. At the very top of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia its states:

Either you have still have not read it, or you are willfully ignoring it, despite a number of past blocks for ignoring the licensing requirements. You have been pasting huge chunks of articles into other articles without providing a hyperlink in the edit summary to each article which you have copied, and you've been doing this all week.

You cannot simply write things like:

  • [5] Restore removed content, with attribution to Robert Blakewell article
  • [6] History section, some material from Williiam Armstrong

You must actually link to the specific article (not simply mention a name), e.g. you must put Robert Bakewell (agriculturalist) and William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong in the edit summaries. There are three Robert Bakewell's on Wikipedia and 19 William Armstrong's. Even if a unique article could be inferred from your edit summary, you are still failing to comply with our terms of use by not linking to the article in question.

Please go back to every single one of the articles where you have copied material without attribution and repair the attribution either via a dummy edit containing the linked article name or by adding the "copied" template to the article's talk page. If you fail to make those repairs or continue to copy without proper attribution, I will request reinstatement of your block. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to request it, it's done. Noodleki, I made it very clear when I unblocked you that any infraction of Wikipedia's copyright rules would result in the reinstatement of your block. To go right ahead and carry on, despite being repeatedly pointed to the policies, shows that you are either unwilling or simply insufficiently competent to abide by the terms of the unblock. You are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia - again. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon
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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

As explained below.Noodleki (talk) 10:08 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Since two editors whom I respect have endorsed unblocking, I'm lifting the block. Personally I think the very fact that you are still having to be told to fix your copyright violations - which could be easily avoided if you simply read the instructions that everybody has repeatedly pointed out to you, or just wrote your own content - indicates that you simply aren't capable of safely using other people's content. However, my personal opinion isn't one of our guidelines, so with some trepidation, I'm unblocking your account again. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me this isn't serious. When I was unblocked, I fixed all of my previous mistakes immediately, I have diligently added attributions to every edit I made since then. I have even removed copyvios that I found such as at [7]. I thought that writing the name of the article was enough. I didn't not to do that on purpose, it was simply a mistake. I even began to correct it before this. Please have some mercy on me. It was a mistake on my part. It didn't properly register with me that the page had to be linked as well, but is it really necessary to just ban me for that? I'm really trying to appeal to some humanity and generosity, please just let me redo the attributions, surely you can see that I genuinely want to help on this encyclopedia, that I have made edits that improve it's quality. Surely the fact that I just failed to link the pages in the summary isn't so egregious. Surely you can see that it was a stupid oversight, for which I am desperately sorry. I'm sorry if I'm rambling here, but I am so upset I can barely think coherently. I beg you to have some mercy on me, I waited for almost eight months, I repaired all my previous mistakes, I reversed copyvios that I found, I made useful edits, I made sure to add attributions, and I immediately started to add links, the moment the problem was pointed out to me by User:Voceditenore. He said "If you fail to make those repairs or continue to copy without proper attribution, I will request reinstatement of your block" and I immediately set about rectifying it. Why be more strict than him? Please just let me, add those links, is it so important that you are willing to ban me rather than let me fix the issue quickly. Please have some mercy, I don't think I deserve to be treated like some sort of criminal - I put all the attributions there, just without a link. Beyond the text you see on the screen is a human being, please have some compassion.Noodleki (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "If you are found to have made any copyright violations (of outside sources or Wikipedia's own text)...any administrator is free to restore the indefinite block". Do you not think that calling what I have done a 'copyright violation' is going too far? If I write the name of the article, such that it is clear where it is coming from, how is that a copyright violation? It isn't following the guidelines to the letter, but this is not a copyright violation, it just means that the user has to copy it into the search bar and get taken there. This is really a very unfair overreaction to a minor issue which I am more than willing to rectify. I understand that I have been banned in the past, multiple times, and I realize that this fact alone creates a well of mistrust against me that just hardens over time. However, I have changed, and my actions surely show this. I have helped clear my previous violations, I have added attributions to every article I have edited - again it simply 'can't' be considered a copyright violation just for not linking the article - when it is clear where the text comes from either way - I have worked constructively with other editors and I have removed copyright violations that I have come across. Voceditenore pointed out the problem and I immediately began to rectify it. Just let me complete the task, there is no need for this deeply upsetting reaction.Noodleki (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Noodleki seemed to be making a very prompt effort to correct an oversight concerning the attribution process. This oversight was minor compared to his previous wanton disregard for copyright and licensing requirements. I therefore endorse his unblock request. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind support.Noodleki (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's the least (and the most) I will do. From observing your edits the past few weeks it really does seem to me as though you've fundamentally changed. Anyway, It's probably better if you use the {{unblock}} template to formally request an unblock. Otherwise an administrator might not notice your request. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I too would support an unblock since as soon as I put this latest warning, Noodleki repaired the issues. However, Noodleki's comment: "It didn't properly register with me that the page had to be linked as well, but is it really necessary to just ban me for that?" shows that he/she did not carefully read the guidelines as they have been instructed to do numerous times. A "minor issue", Noodleki? No it's not a minor issue to violate our terms of service and copyright policy. It didn't "register" with you, Noodleki? No, my view is that you were simply too lazy to read the guidelines and do the necessary work to properly attribute the articles and went right back to your old ways. And you did not simply neglect the necessary links, you also failed to give the exact name of the articles. It took yet another threatened block to make you finally (?) pay attention. I'm going out on a limb here to support your unblock, but I'm warning you, if there is even one more instance of this (regardless of your excuses) I will report you directly to an administrator and fully support an indefinite block. Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Airmail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Postmaster general and Charity
Arms industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William Armstrong and Elswick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Athletic shoe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Nike, Plimsoll, Lonsdale, Keen, Puma, Seaside, Dunlop, Mizuno, Gola, Fila, Jordans, Converse, America and Anta
Airmail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Postmaster general
Blockade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In this edit [8] you added "At the same time, military medical doctors started diagnosing soldiers with "exhaustion" after the stress of battle. This "exhaustion" was characterized by mental shutdown due to individual or group trauma" The ref says "In the early 1800’s military doctors on campaigns, began diagnosing soldiers with ‘exhaustion’ following the stress of battle. This exhaustion was characterised by mental shutdown due to individual or group trauma."

Additionally there is referencing issues. Please per WP:MEDRS use recent high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Stop icon with clock
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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You still don't seem to get it. You cannot copy a chunk of text from a source, change a couple of words, and assume that this doesn't violate the author's copyright. Here you took paragraph 01-03 from this source (which is clearly copyrighted at the bottom of the page), and made a couple of minor changes to the wording. You also attempted to hide this fact by claiming in your edit summary that you were only reusing text from other articles (the source and text you plagiarised doesn't appear in either of the two articles you named).
Enough is enough. If other editors are going to be obliged to trawl through your edits on an almost daily basis to check that you haven't broken copyright laws, then your presence here is more disruptive than constructive. You have demonstrated time and again that you are either unwilling or unable to follow the very basic requirements of copyright, and so I have reinstated your block for the second time - I do not anticipate it being removed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph you refer to was already in the article here.Noodleki (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually been there for over 4 years.Noodleki (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Noodleki (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 a copyright violation committed some four years ago by someone else. I would like this to be rectified immediately. Noodleki (talk) 9:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Mea culpa; it looks as though I misread the diff. My apologies; I've removed the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scaffolding may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in 1919 - this soon became the industry standard coupling and has remained so to this day.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.harsco-i.co.uk/pages/8113|title=Early developments - At the forefront of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocket artillery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of [[Boulogne]], and during the [[Battle of Copenhagen (1807)|naval bombardment]] of [Copenhagen]], where over 25,000 rockets were launched causing severe incendiary damage to the city. The rockets

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cruising (maritime) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Native Americans and Travelogue
Military academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Mezieres and Kriegsakademie
Crane (machine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Newcastle
Hydrotherapy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to James Currie
Kettle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Catalogue
Mint (coin) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shears
Oceanography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Western
Serial killer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Javed Iqbal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Urban sprawl

Your edit removed some text regarding the first urban service boundary in Lexington, KY. Was this intentional? See my reversion [9]. John Reaves 00:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I put that text in the history section.Noodleki (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah ha. Excellent addition by the way. John Reaves 01:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pryce-Jones

I see what you are trying to do with this. I put part back again as we lost a lot of the history.

Sorry, but it is a bit of a stretch to say that the UK invented parcel post or that Pryce-Jones invented or was the instigator of any part of it. There are no good sources to support this and parcel post was huge in Germany and Austria by 1881 (62m parcels) according to the Jones article which I have just downloaded on JSTOR. Check it out if you can. There is even an 1881 parcel post stamp in the article. This was all going to happen anyway, the UK was just slow due to the difficulties over the railway's monopoly. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

David Bohm

It is already covered in the lead section, in chronological order, last paragraph of the lead. It's the way it is by consensus, so if you want to change it, start a discussion on the talk page and get a new consensus. See WP:BRD. Yworo (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Parcel post

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Parcel post. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please discuss what you want to do on the talk page first. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Orphanage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Church and Royal patronage
Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Royal patronage
Boomtown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Midlands
History of robots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Digital
Mail order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to America
Robot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Digital
Seaside resort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Royal patronage
Urban sprawl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Antiquity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Artillery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William Armstrong and Battle of Cambrai
History of road transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Tudor and Convex
Bulletproof vest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Medical Research Council
Ice skating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to NISA
Motorcycle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Triumph Motorcycles
Motorcycle history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Triumph Motorcycles
Mountaineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Enlightenment
Public service announcement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ministry of Information
Road transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Convex
Sniper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Confederacy
Street light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Clayton
Ventriloquism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Palace Theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop attempting to edit war poorly sourced content into articles or you may be blocked. Also all your edits appear to be simply moving content from one article on Wikipedia and duplicating it in another. I find this sort of work disruptive and would request that you stop. It confused the edit history. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally these last two edits [10] and [11] do not mention were you got it from. Thus are technically copyright infringements as you did not write the content yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Those edits may be warring, but they are not copyright infringements any more than any other reverts are. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I provided the attribution the first time around as surely you can see, and of course, the irony is, that I 'did' write the bulk of the material for the history of suicide article. Please check before hurling allegations around, as you did last time with PTSD.Noodleki (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a suitable reference [12]. Please use stuff that is published. You appear to do a lot of moving around of text. And than trying to edit war your changes into place across multiple articles. This is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Many religions existed in europe before christianity, that condemned suicide. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it not suitable? The society may have controversial views on suicide assistance, but there's no reason to discount it's material. I don't know why you are demanding published sources, that doesn't seem to be a requirement for sourcing. The text being moved was written by me on the history of.. page, I have put it on the main page, because it could do with some expansion and perspective. What is inappropriate about that?Noodleki (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This helps explain what a reliable source is Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Published, means 'available to the public', which it is.Noodleki (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You missed a bit "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is a well established non-profit that has been covered in national news and has influence. There is no reason to doubt the 'accuracy' of their website, especially when it is a simple factual account that can be verified anywhere else. Did Hume write a defence of suicide? Why yes. To preempt this back-and-forth, here is another source, this time from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (good at fact checking presumably). Here, Donne, Hume Montaigne and Moore are all mentioned.Noodleki (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested further community comment here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ref style

It is custom to format refs in the same style as those in the rest of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Close quarters combat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Triads, International Settlement and Anthony Biddle
Hand-to-hand combat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Triads, International Settlement and Anthony Biddle
Rocket artillery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Mexican War, Woolwich Arsenal and William Hale
Electrical telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to IET and What hath God wrought
Inflatable boat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to RFD and Thomas Hancock
Riot control (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Triads and International Settlement
Steamship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Yarmouth and RMS Mauretania
Telegraphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to East Coast and IET
Agriculture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jethro Tull
Combat pistol shooting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to International Settlement
History of agriculture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jethro Tull
History of suicide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Musical
Knife fight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to International Settlement
Ronald W. Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Edward Appleton
Seaplane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Woolston
Semaphore line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deal
Suicide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Musical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism

It's about time that you start using the article's Talk page to discuss your proposed changes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pacifism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and the peace societies|url=http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnaw.htm|publisher=[[International Committee of the Red Cross|author=André Durand}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Children's rights movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Collection: Literary Ladies|publisher=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk The National Archives]|accessdate=5April 2009|last=|first=}}</ref> In 1852 she established a reformatory school at

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amusement park may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ride), 'River Caves' (a [[scenic railway]]), [[water chute]]s and a [[tobogan]]ning tower.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://entertainmentdesigner.com/history-of-theme-parks/the-history-of-pleasure-beach-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Historic preservation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • fireplaces. After a nationwide hunt for them they were finally found in London and returned.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21587468|title=The man who demolished Shakespeare's

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LGBT social movements may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • wrote ''A Problem in Greek Ethics'', a work of what would later be called "[[gay history]]."<ref>((cite book|author=Katz|title=Love Stories|page=pp. 243–244}}</ref> Although the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' credits the medical writer [[Charles Gilbert
  • such as ''Eudiades'', which has been called "the most famous of his homoerotic poems".<ref>{{cite book|author=Robert Aldrich|title=The Seduction of the Mediterranean: Writing, Art, and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Striptease

Please do not removed sourced material from this (or any other article) without first discussing it on the article's talk page and getting a consensus for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Always check first. Word to the wise.Noodleki (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

History of timekeeping devices (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Magnetic resonance, George Graham, Thomas Mudge, John Arnold, Edward Barlow and William Clement
Divorce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Enlightenment, John Manners, Joseph II and Frederick II
Clock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to George Graham, Edward Barlow and William Clement
Children's rights movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Enlightenment and Radical
Magic (illusion) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to King George II and Magic Circle
Humanitarian intervention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Britain
Microwave oven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Randall
Police (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Absolutism
Supergun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Newcastle
Swept wing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Farnborough

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving around text

Information icon In a recent edit to the page League of Nations, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to threaten me, I have absolutely no interest in what style of English is used, I was trying to add material. Oh and by the way, according to the talk page, the original author was American.Noodleki (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I find Noodleki moving around of text from one article to another disruptive. It appears that other people have found it disruptive aswell [14]. I would request that they stop doing it and only add completely original well-referenced text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In this edit you claim that the text you have added have come from 5 different articles. It is not clear which text came from which article and this raises issues around inappropriate attribution.[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You think that adding informative and well referenced information is disruptive, do you. I expect you find wikipedia disruptive in general. Look at all those people constantly editing and changing things without your permission. I'm afraid this website is for other people, as well as yourself. If we're into calling each other disruptive, then I think you're disruptive, for a) constantly reverting things for no reason, b) deviously reverting after some time has elapsed under false pretexts c) acting as if you own pages d) slurring me (you've now done this three times) here, here and here, in an attempt to get me banned - you even succeeded in accusing me of adding copyright material that had been there for years. So yes, it is fine to synthesize existing and relevant content to enhance the content on other pages, provided attribution to the original page is made. No, it is not fine to act as if you own articles and block changes for no good reason, and it is certainly not fine to slander other people. It's also interesting that you refer to me in the third person on my own talk page - perhaps you're talking to someone else.Noodleki (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not well referenced generally. You are adding large blocks of poorly references content with different reference formatting and language to articles that have a consistent formatting style and language. Anyway this appears to be a refusal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chemical industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lime, Conglomerate, Dupont, James Young and Thomas Hancock
Close air support (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Pacific theater, Fighter, Battlezone, Battle of Cambrai and Ground force
Coolie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Media, Natal, Indigenous, Fine and Reunion
History of hospitals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Enlightenment, Saint James, Saint Simeon, Conrad and Godard
Amusement park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Crystal Palace and Cremorne Gardens
Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Default and Deposit
History of watches (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to War Department and Thomas Mudge
Watch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to War Department and Thomas Mudge
Central heating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Midlands
Hiking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bill
History of banking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deposit
History of timekeeping devices (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to War Department
Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Enlightenment
Internationalism (politics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Internationalist
Ventilation (architecture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Miasma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noodleki/Archive_1&oldid=1141961005"