Hello, Immunmotbluescreen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Humör, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drivenapart (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, read Wikipedia:Vandalism before you post unverified and unreliable "warnings" to me, you'll find that referencing a first-party consensus for a debated genre is reliable until one that is more reliable exists. In this case, the word from IceFrog and Valve Corporation trumps out what a HoN fan site describes as a "MOBA". I was the original creator of the Dota 2 page and it is thanks to myself and the administrator David Fuchs that the Defense of the Ancients page is what it is today. Furthermore, I would encourage you to look into the Wikipedia community's view point on the Dota (genre) talk page on this subject before you single me out as a vandal, which I might say is insulting since I have been editing Wikipedia long before you have and have far more experience with this kind of business.
Please do not send me more of your "warnings". You may attempt to undo my edits, but you will see other Wikipedia users revert back to mine, simply because you are basing your threats off of hearsay. Vandalism does not constitute making you sad, so don't pull this crap again. DarthBottotalk•cont00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It makes me sad to see how far you are prepared to go in order to promote DotA 2 and multimillion-dollar Valve Corporation. However your immoral censoring attempt didn't go unnoticed."
So really, I want to emphasize how stupid and unwarranted your warning for Vandalism in the second degree was and hope that you don't make any more foolish edits. Kapeesh? DarthBottotalk•cont01:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TeapotgeorgeTalk10:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Immunmotbluescreen. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Roccat, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you refer to other editors as trolls again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tailtalk16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Immigration to Sweden. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I strongly suggest that you remove/strike through your latest round of accusations as to my editing behaviour. Your assumptions of bad faith are escalating all round, and you have been asked to keep your cool by several editors both here and on article talk pages.Iryna Harpy (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling out the lies and dishonesty is the only protection against lies and dishonesty. If you don't want your lies to be called out, maybe you should stop posting them. One time could be an honest mistake, but repeated abuse is a pattern. I am only using self defense. To let lies and dishonesty go unchallenged is how good articles turn rotten.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to what edit warring means. Read the policy carefully: do not continue edit warring even if you think you're right. There are multiple editors reverting you who have been engaged in dialogue over the content you keep trying to reintroduce over the past month. The fact that you are accusing them of bad faith in edit summaries on articles, article talk pages, and on your own talk page is not a "defence" for your actions, and only attests to your battleground approach to editing. You're behaviour is WP:NOTHERE. If you cannot adhere to consensus, whether you like it or not, and have continued attacking other editors as to what you believe to be their motivation (i.e., liars, etc.) is appalling and unacceptable. You are talking about experienced editors who understand policy and do not bring their personal political views to content despite what they may personally believe. Wikipedia is not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's time to WP:LISTEN to the majority because you... are... edit... warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation
Your addition has been removed, 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tailtalk02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remove the copyright violations from your sandbox. You cannot wholesale copy pages of books and paste them onto Wikipedia, that is a complete violation of copyright laws. Additionally knowingly linking to images of copyrighted works is similarly a violation. Canterbury Tailtalk02:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are talking about? A sandbox temporary citation from a small part of his book, which in turn is based on fair use of the works of others, is a text book example of 17 U.S.C. § 107 Fair use and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It is also in line with Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk Kap 1. $ 22 Citat (here is a summary of this [1]. I will censor the least used passages then.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use as in the US law, Wikipedia policy or a translation of "god sed"? For each case I don't think there is such a clear line. 5/374= 1 % and he used three big block quotes there so the real use is <1 % temporarily posted at an hidden page on Wikipedia to resolve how to quote the book in an article. This page from Harvard says one entire chapter could be fine[2]. Other sources use this limit as well[3]. This is only one argument that takes one section to explain.
Maybe leaving out the less relevant (but still relevant) parts was for the better in any case as it leaves less for the editor to evaluate. There is a high risk however that once things are not going their way, they will move the goalposts again and claim I am making it up that the text is from the book.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on edits and articles, not editors. Making such comments about other editors is not really acceptable. You have a lot of admins looking at you right now and such comments suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that you're not actually trying to work with other editors. Canterbury Tailtalk17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not treating things as a battleground and they did move the goalposts. I have brought this up on ANI twice so it is not a violation of WP:AGF? What it is your interepretation of AGF? That I should just let every trick go uncommented, there was never any answer to this. But if you are looking for things to administer, take a look at the first reply in that NPOV thread. The admin overwatch is a good reason why I also have to correct you about fair use.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was pointing out Wikipedia's copyright policies. Wikipedia's policies on text are quite clear. Transcribing 5 pages may be deemed fair use in some areas but not here. Small quotations are all you're allowed on Wikipedia per the WP:NFC. A 5 page transcription does not meet that criteria. Canterbury Tailtalk18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure if one argument is considered "extensive quotation" and I think WP:NFC is written mainly for articles and permanent material. I don't think that was a clear case of copyright infringement, you obviously do. Let's agree to disagree and keep it at its current form. There a service where they can test it, but let's not bother them as it does not matter and we solved it here.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
I closed your RfC on NPOV/N because it was not correctly formatted. Per the instructions, an RfC must ask a simple question which people and either Support or Oppose. Also you miscategorized the question, it was not primarily related to "Economy, trade and companies" - more like politics or society. An RfC should be formatted like this:
Also I would suggest creating a section just for the RfC on the talk page of the article rather than trying to make one on the NPOV noticeboard. You can advertise (direct people to) the RfC from wherever you like. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DIYeditor: The opening statement must be given either a signature or a timestamp - your example above has neither. RfCs need not be formatted with subsections; they need not ask a simple question which people either Support or Oppose. More information at WP:RFC and WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DIYeditor: Apologies if this comes across as if you were being picked on, as it is certainly not my intention, however no editor is free to 'advertise' as they wish. There are definitive, sensible proscriptions as to raising awareness of the existence of an RfC. Please consult WP:CANVAS, particularly WP:APPNOTE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for pointing that out. As I just said on Redrose64's talk page I am a bit too eager to be helpful and authoritative on Wikipedia without requisite experience. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Immigration to Sweden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
