User talk:Melchior2006/Archive 1

Carol Everett

Would you care to comment on this wiki's talk page? There were more than a few issues of tone (neutrality) with the original you created, and there is still an issue of needing better sources for the subject. If you have any news articles, linking them in the talk page would be greatly appreciated. Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a look and added many references. --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm StAnselm. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Mark Driscoll (pastor), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Gordon George Avery

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Gordon George Avery. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – George Avery. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at George Avery. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

George Avery

Hi, thanks for this article! It seems like he is a clearly notable subject, but why do you say he was born in 1927? The DNB website seems to contain a link saying 1926, which is also what his VIAF page and so does this source. Blythwood (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

corrected it. Thanks! Where can I find his exact date of birth? any suggestions? --Melchior2006 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Claude Vaussin

Hello, Melchior2006,

Thanks for creating Claude Vaussin! I edit here too, under the username Girth Summit and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

I see this is a translation from the German page. If you are familiar with the subject matter and sources, it would be great if you were able to improve the page by adding in-line citations to support specific assertions to each of the sources. Cheers!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 10:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James France (historian)

The article James France (historian) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bernard Peugniez

Thanks for adding the article on Bernard Peugniez! I've done quite a lot on monasteries and have often come across his books. Ingratis (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Bernard Peugniez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bernard Peugniez 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/Bernard Peugniez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. PK650 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spyridon Panagopoulos

Hello Melchior2006,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spyridon Panagopoulos for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your case request at Arbitration requests

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, you should first discuss this with the deleting administrator, and if you do not feel that the situation is resolved you should then go to deletion review or the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Arbitration, as the last step on the ladder for most disputes, generally requires that previous steps of dispute resolution have been tried, such as going to the administrators' incidents noticeboard and deletion review. If you have further questions, you can ask here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I have contacted the deleter. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Magali Elise Roques for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magali Elise Roques 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/Magali Elise Roques until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

[moved here from other section, so everything together]: Hello, I'm FlybellFly. It has been brought to my attention that you created a page for Magali Elise Roques due to the plagiarism scandal. However, it is questionable whether this single event warrants a WP page WP:SINGLEEVENT. Currently, others are editing out your negative comments, making the page a pseudobio WP:PSEUDO. I am thinking of nominating the page for deletion. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Samuel Claggett Chew

Hi, I'm the editor who reviewed your recent article Samuel Claggett Chew. I just wanted to remind you to please leave out honorary or professional titles from the text of Wikipedia articles. (So, just "Chew" instead of "Dr. Chew".) But don't worry about the article, I've fixed it for your. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lee Devin

The article Lee Devin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While an interesting read, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet either WP:NSCHOLAR, WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your edit to Oscar Brockett has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I would like to understand the error better. Could you perhaps quote the part of my edit which you found objectionable? Melchior2006 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 15:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hubert Crouse Heffner is your third copyright violation. I am uncomfortable with letting you edit further until you provide assurance that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please lodge an unblock request with your answers to the following questions, in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? MER-C 15:35, 19 March 2022 (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).

Melchior2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am committed to respecting copyright. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your answers below are not sufficient. If you followed what you say you will do, below, you will end up violating copyright again. Yamla (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2022 (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.

• What is copyright? It obligates us to respect intellectual property by clearly identifying texts written by others.
• How is Wikipedia licenced? There are several licenses available, some of them prohibit making any changes, and all of them require acknowledging the orginal author. I am not interested in commercial usage, but that is another category.
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Copyrighted materials can only be used in a very restricted manner on Wikipedia. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service requires creative restating and rearranging, so that a noticeable difference and a noticeable creative act are clearly recognizeable.
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? By observing licensing requirements.
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? I will go beyond paraphrasing so as to make a unique and creative intellectual contribution to Wikipedia, and if a verbatim or near-verbatim overlap should ensue, I will identify the source clearly. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• For the sake of transparency, Melchior2006 sent me an email yesterday asking for "help" with answering these questions. I'm not willing to provide answers or coaching for these, as if Melchior2006 doesn't understand them then the answers don't mean anything. If you need reading material then try Wikipedia:Copyright assistance or Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Hut 8.5 19:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• For the sake of transparency, I contacted Hut 8.5 because he is listed as a "Wikipedia administrator willing to investigate copyright matters" and has received "The Help Award". I also contacted some friends and asked them for help. Melchior2006 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Melchior2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, I made mistakes, and I understand copyright better now. Melchior2006 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I understand copyright better now". OK, so make a better unblock request that proves this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2022 (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.

• What is copyright? It is a person's right that his or her work may not be appropriated by others.

• How is Wikipedia licenced? Most Wikipedia content is licensed by CC-BY-SA 3.0, which also means that all Wiki-content can be used commercially (under the correct legal circumstances); that means Wikipedia bears the responsibility for its content, even commercially, despite the fact that it is freely accessible and Wiki-editors get no money. Wikipedia is subject to US copyright laws.

• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Some CC licenses prohibit use on Wikipedia. There are a total of six CC licenses, which are standardized copyright licenses. If the CC-license permits it, you can use materials in the stipulated manner. No matter what the CC license, it will almost always stipulate attribution (CC0 doesn't). Quotations of texts are allowed with proper attribution (Berne convention). Work under the following CC licenses may not be used on Wikipedia: BY-SA 4.0, BY-NC, BY-NC-ND, BY-ND, BY-NC-SA. This is what I did not understand before and I see now that it was a legal risk for Wikipedia. I would like to apologize for that.

Quote judiciously, since too much quoting may constitute a breach of copyright. Paraphrasing is not okay. Wikipedia writers need to formulate ideas in their own words.

• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? The following CC licenses are permitted: BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0, BY-SA 1.0, BY-SA 2.0, BY-SA 2.5, BY-SA 3.0, and CC0.

• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? By identifying the license before copying the text, by avoiding paraphrasing, and – when the license permits it – by using attributed quotes, albeit sparingly. Melchior2006 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Pings do not work unless you add your signature to your message in the same edit. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks, that was very kind of you! Melchior2006 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You have probably read these pages, but see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Assume that what you see in books, journals and websites is all rights reserved, which means no copying. Instead write in your own wording. Very old works may be in the Public domain, but you will have to ensure that first before copying. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! But I mentioned all of this in my request (see above), and still it is "not good enough". I must be missing something. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@MER-C: If an old Wikipedia editor may add her 2 cents: I have corresponded at length with Melchior2006 on the subject of copyright and what went wrong here. I must admit that I do not understand why he is still being blocked. He has read up on the topic and would like to get back to his Wikipedia work on biographies. He has contributed quite a lot to WP:DE and also to WP:EN. I try and help academics contribute to Wikipedia and must admit that I am baffled. Why is this account still blocked and what can I do to help? --WiseWoman (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed a few unblock requests before - if I saw that and didn't read the discussion I would instantly decline. The copyright answers should be in the unblock template. I don't object to an unblock. MER-C 02:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and giving the ok for an unblock. I see now that I made a formal error by placing my answers to the copyright questions in the wrong section. That was my mistake. I will request an unblock again. Melchior2006 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request (MER-C said he has no objections, see previous section)

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

Melchior2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I answered these questions correctly on 25 March 2022, but formatted incorrectly. I am now repeating the request in the appropriate format.

• What is copyright? It is a person's right that his or her work may not be appropriated by others.
• How is Wikipedia licenced? Most Wikipedia content is licensed by CC-BY-SA 3.0, which also means that all Wiki-content can be used commercially (under the correct legal circumstances); that means Wikipedia bears the responsibility for its content, even commercially, despite the fact that it is freely accessible and Wiki-editors get no money. Wikipedia is subject to US copyright laws.
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Some CC licenses prohibit use on Wikipedia. There are a total of six CC licenses, which are standardized copyright licenses. If the CC-license permits it, you can use materials in the stipulated manner. No matter what the CC license, it will almost always stipulate attribution (CC0 doesn't). Quotations of texts are allowed with proper attribution (Berne convention). Work under the following CC licenses may not be used on Wikipedia: BY-SA 4.0, BY-NC, BY-NC-ND, BY-ND, BY-NC-SA. This is what I did not understand before and I see now that it was a legal risk for Wikipedia. I would like to apologize for that.

Quote seldom and judiciously! Too much quoting may constitute a breach of copyright. Paraphrasing is not okay. Wikipedia writers need to formulate ideas in their own words.

• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? The following CC licenses are permitted: BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0, BY-SA 1.0, BY-SA 2.0, BY-SA 2.5, BY-SA 3.0, and CC0.
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? By identifying the license before copying the text, by avoiding paraphrasing, and – when the license permits it – by using attributed quotes, albeit sparingly. Melchior2006 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As the blocking admin stated they no longer object to an unblock, and these answers seem okay to me, I will remove it. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@MER-C: --WiseWoman (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)