User talk:Yeokaiwei

This is Yeokaiwei's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Land of Fire, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Good game

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

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

If you think that 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), 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. andy (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Isa Knox

The article Isa Knox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable unless notability established by further secondary sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sardakk N'orr

A tag has been placed on Sardakk N'orr, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. Minima c (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hwaseung OZ

A tag has been placed on Hwaseung OZ 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 an organization or company, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. 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. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hwaseung OZ

A tag has been placed on Hwaseung OZ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may 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. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hump speed

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

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

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. ttonyb (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company that produces the hexapod positioners in your gallery - "Hexapod"

Those are made by Faunc. The ones photographed are quite old, but I'd check the fanuc website. Sorry for the slow reply! Mike1024 (t/c) 10:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited FXCM, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slippage (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) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Digital Extremes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery (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) 09:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Team Fortress Classic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cook (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) 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fraser and Neave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fraser. 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) 09:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Goi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. 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) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Oei Hong Leong) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Oei Hong Leong, Yeokaiwei!

Wikipedia editor Roshan014 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for starting this article on Wikipedia. Cheers

To reply, leave a comment on Roshan014's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank You

Thank You for the kitten Yeokaiwei.--Roshan014 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James R. Swartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Cove. 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) 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Medical Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Simon. 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) 09:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Your edit on Visa Inc has again been reverted. Visa Inc is a US registered company, therefore US date format is applied. Please do not edit war, as this can lead to a block from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 May

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

On the Oei Tiong Ham page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Deepak Sharma

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

A tag has been placed on Deepak Sharma 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 a person or group of people, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Steven Robert Leonard

Hi, I'm Helenabella. Yeokaiwei, thanks for creating Steven Robert Leonard!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi there, it would be very helpful if you could provide some more material in the Steven Robert Leonard article to substantiate the subject's notability, demonstrating it meets with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Helenabella (Talk) 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thomas Alexander William Hayes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Alexander William Hayes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Alexander William Hayes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Jover Chew Chiew Loon) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jover Chew Chiew Loon, Yeokaiwei!

Wikipedia editor Robvanvee just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job!

To reply, leave a comment on Robvanvee's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Chung Khiaw Bank

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chung Khiaw Bank, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/78f27444-24b3-4215-ae57-8c0dfa7a99ea.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ker Sin Tze

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ker Sin Tze, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.scchk.com.hk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=71.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Agnes Joaquim does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Compassionate727 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deepak Sharma for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deepak Sharma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Sharma until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June

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

On the Ned Goodman page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Tuttle Woodruff

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Theodore Tuttle Woodruff, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.midcontinent.org/rollingstock/builders/woodruff-central_transportation.htm.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright block

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 wish to resume editing, it may be necessary for you to demonstrate your understanding of these policies and reassure the community of your willingness to comply. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 18 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Which article?

Decline reason:

If I had to guess, perhaps the one mentioned right above your block notice? Kuru (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

There is no copyright. I just checked Theodore Tuttle Woodruff. You can't google the introductory summary, so it's not copyrighted.

Decline reason:

Being able to be found on Google is nothing to do with copyright - and I have just Googled the first words (as before Moonriddengirl's deletion of them) and found them on the midcontinent site. It's being published that counts. That text was published by being made available to be read online. It would count as published in a printed version too, or even nailed to a church door. There is no copyright notice on that site page but that doesn't mean it is free to use. More important, there is no notice saying that it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. One doesn't have to put copyright notices on things (but it helps), but if there is no release for free reuse notice we assume copyright. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (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.

That's nice, thank you for checking Monnriddengirl's revision. Do you remember creating the article at Theodore Tuttle Woodruff? When you created it, did you copy material from any other sources? Kuru (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Is there a 10% rule regarding copyright?"therefore not infringed copyright if:- (a) you copy not more than 10% of the total number of bytes in that edition". I just lifted from the another webpage though. Assuming copyright infringement, how may I request to remove the block?

Decline reason:

Not that I'm aware of. Anyway, your account will be unblocked if you persuade us that you understand what you did wrong, and won't repeat the mistakes that led to your block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (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.

Quotation from other places is allowed, but quotes must be brief, have a good reason (that is: things like an expression of someone important's opinion in his/her own words, or a definition by an important source), and be referenced to their source and placed in quotation marks. For example: [ The Bloggsco Dictionary defines twidget as "A small mechanical kitten; a tool used in extracting prumbles from greylets; a term of affection used by the fishing community of North Carolina.". Joe Frimp, however, uses it to mean a minor discrepancy in accounting. ]. In that example, Bloggsco are quoted directly, but Joe Frimp isn't. (The square brackets mark the text extracted from a fictional Wikipedia article, because I didn't want to use quote marks when discussing a quote...). Note that Bloggsco are given as the source of the brief quotation, which would be difficult to paraphrase and so is justified as part of a longer article about Joe Frimp, or twidgets (or something involving them). If the article consisted purely of the Bloggsco quote, it would not be justified here. All in all, it's safest to write your own text. Peridon (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you. I have no intention of plagiarism but 10% is quite difficult to judge. Could I request for an unblock? In my defence, I would have like to point out that I have cited all sources, so due credit is given. It is not a copy-paste without a source. The original author can still be traced from the wiki.

Decline reason:

It's clear that you still don't understand how copyright works, and judging from this unblock request I have my doubts that you have even read Wikipedia's copyright policy. If you wish to be unblocked, you must show - not say - that you understand how copyright applies on Wikipedia. Any future unblock appeal therefore needs to explain:

what you understand copyright to mean
what constitutes a copyrighted source
why respecting copyright is important on Wikipedia
what you intend to do in future to ensure that you comply with Wikipedia's rules regarding copyright

Until Wikipedia's administrators are convinced that you understand and will comply with the copyright policy, you will not be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I've looked at the copyright policy. It does not explain it in the 4 points you mentioned Yunshui. Could it be added to the policy? That way no one else will end up with a copyright violation. Thank you.

Decline reason:

The answers to the first three questions are clear within the Wikipedia copyright policy pages; the fourth question asks what you intend to do. All four need to be answered satisfactorily before an unblock can be considered.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:49, 21 July 2015 (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.

I suspect Yunshui is asking you for your own thoughts on those points after you have read and understood copyright policy, not looking for you to simply quote stuff from policy. For example, "what you understand copyright to mean" is asking for *your* understanding (based on what you read). Also "what you intend to do in future to ensure that you comply with Wikipedia's rules regarding copyright" is also clearly asking what *you* personally intend to do, which the policy pages can't possibly answer directly. I've read Wikipedia's copyright policy pages, and there's certainly enough in them for me to be able to answer those four questions, and I think anyone with suitable aptitude for working on Wikipedia should be able to answer them too. I hope this is some help. Mr Potto (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please forget about 10%. I can't remember seeing it anywhere here, and unless it's done as a direct quotation in marks and is necessary as such, it's regarded here as a violation - even if you cite it in a reference. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked

I have blocked 118.200.99.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as the editor has contributed extenively from that address while logged out. This has added 80 more articles to the CCI case.

Regarding a 10% rule, there is no such rule. A better rule of thumb is to not copy three words in a row from a source. Distinctive words or phrases must always be paraphrased. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Does everyone here know about the 4 points that Yunshui mentioned? Please forgive me, but I am a bit confused to hear that the 10% rule is not known. From what I understand about copyright, taking 10% of another person's work, be it in bytes or pages is legit, as in the law. Copyright is created the moment you publish an article, be it literary or some other form. I have not seen a 3-word rule of thumb before. Are Wikipedia's copyright rules self-made? May I ask if the Wikipedia copyright different from what is normally used?

Decline reason:

Your 10% number is not relevant, as described below. We are assumed to know about the points Yunshui mentioned; when we edit Wikipedia, we're bound by Wikipedia policies, and it's our responsibility to familiarize ourselves with them. Peridon below correctly describes the reality of th situtation. You need to commit to never again cutting and pasting copyrighted material; it would probably be best if you did not cut and paste at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:28, 22 July 2015 (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.

Please see https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths about this. There is an accepted 'fair use' in educational establishments about copying purchased texts for student use only which is taken to be one chapter or 10% whichever is less, but that does not apply to places like Wikipedia, where the content is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for free reuse by anyone anywhere - including commercial use. The procedure for educational establishments is obviously not commercial use, but Wikipedia text can be bundled and sold. Attempts are occasionally made to log the usage in educational establishment, but from my view of it this is almost unworkable and probably costs more than would be recouped - plus the side effect of boosting the sales of other publishers' 'free to photocopy' material. That 'free to photocopy' material is not acceptable here because of our licensing - it is only free within the purchasing establishment and for student use only. (We would not have purchased a copy, and the readers of Wikipedia are not students here.) As to the law, Wikipedia is a private site and while stricter laws than our rules take precedence, laxer laws cannot overrule a stricter rule here. The community here can enforce a rule stricter than the law. We cannot enforce a lower level than the law prescribes. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16227 was submitted on Jul 27, 2016 18:31:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think no one reviewed my unblock request. Yeokaiwei (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It has been reviewed, please see above. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2022 (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.