User talk:Rafa Cancian

The Original Soul of Michael Jackson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The Original Soul of Michael Jackson, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Twenty-Five Miles. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted text

Your addition to The Original Soul of Michael Jackson has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. MuffledThud (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to The Original Soul of Michael Jackson. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. MuffledThud (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I think I could be unblocked because I ain't making no vandalism or harm to the wikipedia. It is the first article that I am working on and I don't have all the experience some might have. I understand now all the necessary aspects to work on any kind of article on wikipedia from now on. If I could only be unblocked I would make all the changes necessary to be a real article, to make all the wikipedia's users proud of my work. Thank you.

Decline reason:

The multiple copyright violations you seem dead-set on introducing into that article give me serious pause. Despite what you say, copy-and-pasting from an external source *can* put Wikipedia in legal danger, thus we block any and all users who adamantly breach copyright. Declined. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Articles for deletion nomination of Elizabeth, I Love You

I have nominated Elizabeth, I Love You, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth, I Love You. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]