User talk:Tlecl
Copyright problems with Cabra Castle[edit]
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Cabra Castle, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cabracastle.com/history.php. As a copyright violation, Cabra Castle appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Cabra Castle has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cabra Castle and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Cabra Castle with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cabra Castle.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cabra Castle and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Salih (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar[edit]
A tag has been placed on Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. 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. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Erskine, 4th Lord Erskine, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thepeerage.com/p2588.htm. 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 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.)
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|I dont understand why I have been blocked}}
- Because your edits clearly match those of a previously blocked editor, and as blocks apply to a person and not an account, it appears quite clearly that you are someone evading that community-imposed block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Tlecl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like this reviewed , Thanks
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.
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.
Tlecl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am asking why I am blocked , and would like this independently reviewed . I have not been provided with a clear explanation , and I dont know who has reviewed this as they haven't signed it . What is alleged to be the problem ? I thought Wikipedia was a Charity where anyone could freely add and aedit collaboratively. What is the Problem ? How can I become unblocked ? I don't understand
Decline reason:
This has already been explained to you above by BWilkins. You were blocked for sockpuppetry. Smashvilletalk 14:34, 18 May 2010 (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.
Tlecl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Where is the evidence of this ? How have you reached your conclusion? I dont think there has been much deliberation of this to amount to an independent review by a competent third party
Decline reason:
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.