User talk:Bazsorc
Bazsorc, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Bazsorc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anecdotal evidence into Empirical distribution function. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. 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 moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Roberto and Gomes 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not worried. It was based at an implausible article title and I felt I needed to clean it up rather than just move the page. Bazsorc (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Givans Irish/sandbox[edit]
I am about to revert your removal of the G12 tag on User:Givans Irish/sandbox. Your edit summary is completely false. A copyright violation is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia: even if the user removed the copyvio from the page, the versions with the copyvios MUST be deleted. —teb728 t c 06:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The content was copied from the company website, and the content was purely promotional. Article, talk page, and sandbox are deleted; user is blocked for a user name violation and using Wikipedia to promote a product. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- As well, I reverted your removal of the G12 tag on Givans Irish. It was a clear copyright violation (97.4% on the copyvio report). The use of copyrighted text on Wikipedia is forbidden unless the copyright owner uses the proper procedure to release it for use. --Drm310 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It was a legitimate article in every respect. Prior to its stiff-necked removal, I noted the user removed the part you consider "spam", but he or she too has been blocked (unfairly in my opinion). Bazsorc (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, it was not: it was promotional, copied from the company website. If you think that's legitimate content, well, I don't know what to tell you. And please do look at WP:USERNAME; it was an obvious violation. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Givans Irish (i.e. removed article), I have no opinion there, only that I tried to copy edit the article to bring the presentation to standard. I am on about the user's sandbox which was empty when deleted. I have been here in real time while all this has happened. Bazsorc (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I notice you said in your edit summaries removing the speedy deletion tags, "feature permanently available". If your concern about deleting the userpage and/or sandbox would make those features unavailable to the user, no it would not make them unavailable: you could recreate the pages the same way that you originally created them. Although you had emptied the sandbox, that did not remove the copyright violations from the history of the sandbox: the copyvios were still available there. They had to be deleted--either by deleting the sandbox or by selectively deleting the first three revisions from the sandbox. —teb728 t c 09:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Why couldn't the first three or so revisions have been deleted? That's called 'revdelling' I think? Any reason the page had to be wiped totally? Bazsorc (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- There was nothing on the page or in the history worth keeping--just a {{user sandbox}} tag. If Givans Irish had not been indef blocked (as a promotion-only account) and wanted to use the sandbox to build the encyclopedia, they could have easily recreated it. —teb728 t c 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Why couldn't the first three or so revisions have been deleted? That's called 'revdelling' I think? Any reason the page had to be wiped totally? Bazsorc (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I notice you said in your edit summaries removing the speedy deletion tags, "feature permanently available". If your concern about deleting the userpage and/or sandbox would make those features unavailable to the user, no it would not make them unavailable: you could recreate the pages the same way that you originally created them. Although you had emptied the sandbox, that did not remove the copyright violations from the history of the sandbox: the copyvios were still available there. They had to be deleted--either by deleting the sandbox or by selectively deleting the first three revisions from the sandbox. —teb728 t c 09:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Givans Irish (i.e. removed article), I have no opinion there, only that I tried to copy edit the article to bring the presentation to standard. I am on about the user's sandbox which was empty when deleted. I have been here in real time while all this has happened. Bazsorc (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, it was not: it was promotional, copied from the company website. If you think that's legitimate content, well, I don't know what to tell you. And please do look at WP:USERNAME; it was an obvious violation. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It was a legitimate article in every respect. Prior to its stiff-necked removal, I noted the user removed the part you consider "spam", but he or she too has been blocked (unfairly in my opinion). Bazsorc (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- As well, I reverted your removal of the G12 tag on Givans Irish. It was a clear copyright violation (97.4% on the copyvio report). The use of copyrighted text on Wikipedia is forbidden unless the copyright owner uses the proper procedure to release it for use. --Drm310 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazsorc, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
KoshVorlon 21:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazsorc, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.