User talk:Rjohnson1980

This is Rjohnson1980'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lee Olesky (August 31)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources prove he exists and is a living human, but do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Mentions of Olesky are brief and fleeting, or are in non-WP:RS.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lee Olesky and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lee Olesky, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rjohnson1980! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lee Olesky (January 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lee Olesky and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lee Olesky, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Praxidicae (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose account / paid editing[edit]

Thank you for your recent contributions. I hope you can understand why I considered you a single purpose account when for three years your only edits were to JD Power or Dave Habiger related pages. There were a large number of accounts only editing JD Power related pages to remove unflattering information and your account was one of them. Your proposed articles for Lee Olesky were also suggestive of paid editing which is how I based my interpretation. Moving past that, thank you for your attention to sourcing with your recent edits to other pages. -Eóin (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Toyota shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was fine the way it was, but since you and someone else seem to disagree, I'll let it sit. You can't fight everything. I'm not going to be a stick in the mud. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Salman Rushdie. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war. I'm fine with following protocols, but the edits were made without any good reason and basically violated what is described above. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rjohnson1980 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: ). Thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News posting[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to General Motors, and other pages where you're adding "news": Please read the guideline WP:NOTNEWS, as well as the essays WP:PROSELINE and WP:ANNOUNCED, to see how adding a new line to an article for every new news item is considered bad practice. If you believe any of the news items have historical significance, consider adding them to History of General Motors. If you believe all the news items are significant and that this is a good way to list them, consider moving them into a Timeline of General Motors article. Justifying them by saying other pages have timelines is WP:WHATABOUT. Justifying them by suggesting other editors can fix them is unproductive, as something should be notable and well-written the first time it gets added. I understand that a new stub article may have shorter edits and more recent events, but a well-established article like General Motors should have more careful, thought out edits, not just quick adds every time news happens. --Vossanova ^o< 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting others can "fix" anything, but rather add to them, which is what everyone does or would do if possible. I understand the concerns discussed at the WP:WHATABOUT page but don't believe they quite apply. There's no one way of doing things. You suggested mooing something to the history section, but it's already there, just under a subheading. I think it makes more sense where it was, given the current structure of the page. If you feel the need to do a massive edit, fine, but that's on you. And of course, not everything is necessarily news. I don't think anyone would argue with that. But a new version of a popular car coming out after a big, recent shift in direction of the company certainly would apply. I may re-add at some point, and if I do, this is why. There's nothing objectionable. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lululemon Athletica, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Yamla (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed an error. I thought I added the source but didn't. I just put the info in again with the source. Thanks for the heads up. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard cryptocurrency/blockchain notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Richard Branson - Literari.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Branson - Literari.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Screenshot 2023-06-16 084006.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot 2023-06-16 084006.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:This is a headshot of Richard Branson.webp[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:This is a headshot of Richard Branson.webp. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on CUSIP[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page CUSIP, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dave Habiger headshot.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dave Habiger headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:This is a headshot of Dave Habiger.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:This is a headshot of Dave Habiger.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 22:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dave Habiger headshot - July 2023.webp[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Dave Habiger headshot - July 2023.webp. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Anyone but You[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anyone but You, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Burger King[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Burger King, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sixt[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sixt, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on NuStar Energy[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NuStar Energy, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dave-Habiger-pix-2023V6.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Dave-Habiger-pix-2023V6.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation of https://www.jdpower.com/business/about-us-history and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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. Whpq (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Rjohnson1980! 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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. Please 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in reference to? Rjohnson1980 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look above. File:Dave-Habiger-pix-2023V6.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured as much. Was just trying to be clear. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dave Habiger.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dave Habiger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brilliant Labs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brilliant Labs 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/Brilliant Labs 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 until the discussion has finished.

Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to it in the Smartglasses page. I also added categories to it. That should help.

Smartglasses Rjohnson1980 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at Dave Habiger.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines have been reviewed. The block isn’t necessary and the reasons for it won’t happen again, while I disagree with the process and that it’s happening in part with a bot. Please reverse. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines have been reviewed. The block isn’t necessary and the reasons for it won’t happen again, while I disagree with the process and that it’s happening in part with a bot. Please reverse.

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).

Rjohnson1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Rjohnson1980 (talk) 7:50 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (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).

Rjohnson1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Rjohnson1980 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2024 (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.

Apparently, the edits I was making were flagged as being in violation, but by a bot. Usage seemed to be in line with the rules, so I reversed the change a few times. Apparently, I was wrong, according to an actual human editor. I think the blocking was unreasonable, and if it’s reversed, I will hew to the rules. Hopefully, this is enough detail, but I can elaborate if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjohnson1980 (talk • contribs)

Yes you need to elaborate. Your unblock request is essentially the same as the one was just declined. See Deepfriedokra's message to you. What specific rule or rules were not followed and how exactly will you avoid this if you are unblocked. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2024 (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).

Rjohnson1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

You can use your time while blocked to understand why your actions went against policy and guidelines. I suggest you start by reading wp:non-free. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reason=Your reason here Rjohnson1980 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (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.

My apologies. The specific rule was improper use of images (non-free). My edits were bounced, but by a bot due to what seemed to be poor reasoning. This happened a few times. It’s on me, obviously, and if/when the block is lifted, I will be more careful in both cases.

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).

Rjohnson1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Rjohnson1980 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Like we said, one open unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2024 (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 have read them already. What else can I do?

You can demonstrate your understanding of why you were blocked, what you will do differently, and what constructive edits you want to make in your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) "Your reason here" is not a reason for you to be unblocked. Remember to replace this text in the unblock template with your reasons on why you want to be unblocked. Do not just simply apologize and promise to do better - you need to make a convincing request that describes specifically what you did that led to your block, what you would do to not repeat the same kind of disruptive editing again, and what useful edits you would make instead. Repeated failed requests may lead to you losing your talk page access. Good luck. SG5536B (my talk page | my contribs) 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just want to tell us that you will follow guidelines- most people who say that go back to doing the same thing that they were blocked for. To avoid that, we want you to demonstrate your understanding by explaining what was wrong with your edits and what you will change about your future edits- specifically, this should discuss how you will comport to the non-free content policy. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2024 (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).

Rjohnson1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(This is a new comment that replaces the old ones.) I thought I was doing what's been suggested, but I'll reiterate: I was blocked for being in violation of the non-free use content policy. If reinstated, I will make a point of being more careful and being sure I stay in line with the policies. My violations were inadvertent, but real. I'm sorry for that. If there's something else I need to state or clarify, please let me know. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining 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?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2024 (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.