User talk:Nad.ooo90

Welcome!

Hello, Nad.ooo90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Steven D. Waldman

Hello Nad.ooo90,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Steven D. Waldman, may be copied from http://elsevierauthors.com/stevenwaldmanjd/. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven D. Waldman

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 Steven D. Waldman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 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. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven D. Waldman, M.D, J.D

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 Steven D. Waldman, M.D, J.D 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, you can place a request here. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Status and Advice

Actually, though it does indicate importance, the articles is in large part copied from his page at Elsevier and is thoroly promotional. I have deleted it accordingly. I am quite alarmed that you should actually reintroduce copyright violating material after having been already warned, and do so by using a variant form of the name. You are accordingly being blocked. The subject is notable, but we can tolerate neither promotionalism nor copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated copyright violation and promotionalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (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).

Nad.ooo90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i repiblished this article because it's mine and it contains no promotional writing and also it's approved on another version with another language in wikipedia with the same content please review your decision before doing such thing i need this article published again or specify to me what i have to change in it Nad.ooo90 (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Right from the bat you show that you don't get why you were blocked: "i repiblished this article because it's mine". Not good enough for our copyright policy. It's not that you wrote it, first of all, it's that it isn't published under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 multilicense at its original source. That's the only circumstance under which we can accept previously published material. And usually, when it's text, we wind up editing it extensively so it makes a better encyclopedia article. I'd also review the general notability guideline so that you have a better idea whether the subject of your article meets that standard. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2013 (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.

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).

Nad.ooo90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sir this article was published on wikipedia before here http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_D._Waldman,_M.D.,_J.D. and it wasn't been deleted why only you delete it on the english version of Wikipedia please give me a good reason of deletion and say to me why it's not deleted on the other version of wikipedia Thanks Nad.ooo90 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Each language's wikipedia is separately governed and has its own policies and processes. But copyright compliance is pretty consistent; I imagine that article will be deleted when someone calls it to the attention of the administrators there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:13, 19 May 2013 (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.

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).

Nad.ooo90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't know why you deleted this article because it's written by my client who is himself Steven_D the main person what the article is spoken about so on which copyright do you speak please and the article is describing objectivly the D. Steven and his done works please read again the article and ansewer me please and sorry for wasting your time Thanks Respectfully Nad.ooo90 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly are not reading the information or links that has been provided to you, repeatedly, on this page. If after multiple explanations you still cannot see how the material does not meet our licensing requirements, then there is no assurance that the same disruption would not occur should you be unblocked. Note as well that even if the material was completely compliant, an article written by the subject himself presents a conflict of interest and contradicts the requirement of neutrality and non-promotion. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:12, 19 May 2013 (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.

You must speak politely next time then i'm not interested if you block me or not but my problem is you haven't explained me the reason that you used to delete the article so i can correct it don't refer me to any article because there i can find 1000 of resons of deletion and what i need is just one ok?

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).

Nad.ooo90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok Sir i will not republish the same article again i had rewrited it with new words to not to contain promotional meaning it's neutral and respect all Wikipedia rules please can you unblock me because i need my account and i promise you that i will respect always Wikipedia rules and sorry if i wasted your time Thanks Nad.ooo90 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clearly the other admins did not think your attempts at rewriting the article in a neutral and non-promotional way conformed to Wikipedia's policies. A lack of understanding on that fundamental concept and promising to not re-create the article is not going to get you unblocked. Mkdw^talk 07:27, 21 May 2013 (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.

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).

Nad.ooo90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will wait till you unblock me and i will republish this article if today or another day

Decline reason:

For the final time, the article does not meet the requirements for the English Wikipedia and cannot be included on this project. Your continued promotion of a non-notable individual, and your stated desire to continue to spam this project means you, the person, are not permitted to edit the English Wikipedia. Please go elsewhere to promote people, and stop wasting this project's time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:17, 21 May 2013 (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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)