Eiskrahablo
Eiskrahablo, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Eiskrahablo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC) |
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Melayu Kingdom into Malays (ethnic group). 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, aMelayu Kingdomttribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Eiskrahablo! Your additions to Ngajat have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Long term disruptive editing
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. See the complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You have three previous blocks in 2021, and you are not moving in a good direction. Any admin who becomes convinced that you will follow policy in the future can lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Eiskrahablo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, make a detail review over the false report that accused me, I did not violates the the three revert rules and the reason why I remove some diffs on noticeboard because it was already solved and over, you can see on each article talk page that I engaged in discussion with some user before making any edits, that's why I deleted them because the issue was over, it was done. Omg this is unfair and ridiculous, how could someone report me over false accusation and you blocked me anyways. Didn't you see my reply on the noticeboard? Haven't I already explained? I still preserves the diffs that contains that user who reported me, didn't you see what he/she/they did to that articles? Did he/she/they was right to do the vandalism? am I wrong by reverting it back? and it only twice, not even three times. Can someone use the past reports diffs as the weapon for future report to make it like "a lot"? Why would you allowed that? And if you can, please make a review over my past reports as well, I did not perform any kind of bad faith editing behaviour, I admitted that in my first report I did a personal attack against the user because that user keep vandalise the article and I ask him to stop, but turns out I just knew it is violating the Wikipedia guidelines. But c'mon this is ridiculous, I did not do anything that violates the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please consider my good faith intention on Wikipedia, all I did was nothing but to keep Wikipedia as reliable and verified as it should be. Eiskrahablo (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information.signed, Rosguill talk 04:09, 12 April 2021 (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.
- Sorry, but "it was done" is not a valid reason for removing content from a discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
But the past report is already over, and the result is I was blocked for several period of time. Is it not enough? Is it neccessary to bring those things up all over again? Just to make it seems like I did something so I can be blocked again? The focus of my current report accusation here is the three revert rules and I did not violates that rule, why would is it even possible to block me anyways? All I knew Wikipedia is not a place for the vandalist, and my intention was always about to make Wikipedia as reliable as what it should be. My false accusation need to be reviewed in details. Eiskrahablo (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- The most recent report was about edit warring, not a strict violation of the three-revert rule. And there is a pattern of being blocked for edit warring. What assurances do we have that you won't go back to edit warring if you get unblocked? (Hint: you need to focus on your conduct; the "false accusation" angle is getting you nowhere.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
But I did not do the edit warring, as you could see right here in the history edits of the article; [1] all I did was nothing but to expand the page by adding some citation sources, is that even considered as "edit warring"? I see the definition here Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is and no definition stated that adding some citation sources is considered as edit warring, I even always provide my edits summary to inform about what I did on that article, and see the differences between thus who reported me, did he/she/they even provide clear summary of their edits? The summary he/she/they gave was only "bad english grammar" without even trying to help to fix or improve the grammar errors on that article, and I also did make the linking to disambiguated some terms and he/she/they classified it as "overlinking", if that was the case then why didn't he/she/they help to reduce the overlinking instead of changing the essence of the article?
And furthermore, as what I mentioned above, please make a thorough review and investigation over my past reports, actually I did not perform any kind of edit warring because as what stated right here Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is, reverting the vandalism is not considered as edit warring, but no one pay attention to my explanation and granting my request to investigate my reported edits before blocking my user account, that resulting my blocks for several time, I did admit the first report over my user account is full of my mistake and I admit that was an edit warring because I admit I say something harsh to the other user because he keep trying to vandalise the article, but since then I know that personal attack is not considered as good faith contribution. And further than that, I learnt and I never perform the edit warring anymore. Please someone understand my good intention right here on Wikipedia, no one ever trying to make a deep analyze and consider my good faith intention right here. If I would follow my desire, I won't waste my time editing some articles in Wikipedia for nothing, but here I am trying to make some contribution just to provide reliable and verified information, because I care about Wikipedia development and I see the potential. I hope that I embraced as part of good Wikipedia contributors but seems like no one really understood my intention since the beginning. Eiskrahablo (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a revert of vandalism. You reverted twice; you were (a party to) edit warring at Greater Indonesia. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
But according to this Wikipedia:Reverting#When to revert, reverting is pretty much acceptable without trying to do the disruptive edits and diluted the essential of the article, in fact I am the one who added some additional informative details and citation sources instead, while the one who reports me did not do the same thing, he/she/they blatantly revert the whole version without performing any kind of good faith contribution. The one who reports me started this whole reverting thing, then why there is no action taken for that user account? You can clearly see besides the edit warring, I was reported due to violating thw three revert rules while in fact I did not violates that. Do you think is it fair to block me permanently because of my twice revert attempts, while the one who report me also did the same thing? Is this kind of decision really based on the community norms Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Eiskrahablo (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Given your lack of understanding of WP:Vandalism and WP:Edit warring, yes, I do think it is fair. I will leave your request unanswered in case another admin would like to look, but I will not engage in this discussion further. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you tell me which part that I do not understand or missed? because I already read all of those things before, and I did not feel like I am engaged in any kind of edit warring in this case, in fact I am trying to give my contribution on Wikipedia, I did not ask you to engage in any further discussion with me, but the decision to block my user account is really contradicting the Wikipedia:Five pillars fundamentals of Wikipedia itself. Eiskrahablo (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
edit Eiskrahablo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm asking my account to be unblocked because I want to make further constructive contributions in Wikipedia. Eiskrahablo (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your response to the administrator who took the time to look at your unblock request was basically "you're wrong". Unfortunately for you, they were not wrong, and we are not going to waste any more time on this. I am also going to revoke your access to this talk page, since this is not going anywhere. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2021 (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.
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit