Declined: While these edits are reverts and do have intervening edits, those edits are not substantial content edits. There are three edits by Tom harrison (talk·contribs) doing small formatting fixes that do not affect article content, and one edit from a bot restoring an orphaned ref. The edit warring policy states that "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" and while there are intervening edits in this case, they are not content-related and are so minor and that I'm inclined to treat Mystichumwipe's edits as one single revert. I believe this is in line with the intended spirit of the edit warring policy, which is designed to stop a back-and-forth revert war over content. That's not what I see here. --Chris(talk)15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers m'dear. :-) I've checked and added a few links. But the main thing is that I see now how it should have been done. So... Thanks. I appreciate your help. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Avey
I will be away from the computer from about 12.00 to 23.00 GMT. Wikiwatcher1's block expires a few hours before I return. Would you please state you opinion on my changes on the talk page as soon as possible and preferably before he returns. I will open a new section there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
added a note re Sam Pivnik and his changing position re Avey on Pivnik's talk page. It may be reverted but you can find it. I think it may interest you Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Carin Göring a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Hi, Mystichumwipe. I have noticed problems on a couple of articles (Aafia Siddiqui, Chinmayananda Saraswati) where you have lifted material from sources with little or no paraphrasing. That's a problem, because the source material is copyright, and if you copy it directly or without rephrasing it, Wikipedia is in violation of copyright law. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns quite seriously. Please take the time to read up on copyright concerns, as this is a vital Wikipedia policy with legal ramifications. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Sheikh july2009.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Sheikh july2009.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
In my opinion, your latest comment ("Opening comments by Britmax...") was more effective than some of your previous comments by virtue of being concise and making one point.
(And to anyone reading this, no, I did not just comment on whether the argument itself was or was not good and or valid. The above is good advice for either side of the dispute; if you make a single point clearly and in few words, your argument is more effective than a wall of test is.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Surat Shabd Yoga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
orthodox Sikh faith no longer lay emphasis on a contemporary living guru. Surat Shabd Yoga [panths]] also will vary in the names used to describe the Absolute Supreme Being ([[God]]), including
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reinhard Heydrich may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
| 2) In the course of the final solution, the Jews should be brought under appropriate direction in a
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:RSguru-charan.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).
Problems with upload of File:Maharaj Charan Singh Ji.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Maharaj Charan Singh Ji.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charan Singh (guru), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sangat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Mystichumwipe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Sheikh july2009.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Hello, Mystichumwipe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
Hello, Mystichumwipe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
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 recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gordon Thomas (author) into Gideon's Spies. 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 copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jagat Singh (Sant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Replaceable fair use File:Baba Gurinder Singh Dhillon, sixth guru of Radha Soami Satsang, Beas.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Baba Gurinder Singh Dhillon, sixth guru of Radha Soami Satsang, Beas.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Although only one sentence was problematic, this and a previous warning suggest you still don't understand not to copy from sources. Aside from copyright issues, these edits 1234567 suggest you may have a point of view incompatible with the project. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request unblock
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).
I have been blocked indefinitely for supposedly infringing copyright rules. I argue that I did not break copyright rules. I instead referenced briefly some factual information and in doing so I did not copy any verbatim text from the source cited. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmond_Bordeaux_Szekely&diff=1017451003&oldid=1016504325 The block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The implication that I have some sort of ‘viewpoint’ that is not compatible with the wikipedia project is given vaguely as merely a suggestion. It appears to be a personal opinion not based in any repeated infringement of wiki policy. Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Well, first of all you did infringe Wikipedia's copyright policy. Minor changes in phrasing such as replacing "lectured and published books" with "gave lectures and published books" are not a defence either in law or in terms of Wikipedia's copyright policy: copying does not have to be totally "verbatim". However, that is a fairly minor point. Far more significant is the fact that you have made it abundantly clear over a period of a little more than ten years that you are here to promote points of view on certain issues, and that you are willing to use any kind of method to do so, including misrepresenting sources, attempting to portray what you must know are fringe opinions as though they are mainstream views if they happen to support your point of view, and removing material inimicable to the views that you wish to promote. That has indeed been such a major focus of your editing for the whole of the time you have been here that your presence does very much more harm than benefit to the project, and unblocking you would not be beneficial. JBW (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2021 (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.
None of that has anything to do with copyright, which is the reason given for my blocking. Wikipedia has rules for editing, none of which you have shown I have broken. Just picking a few contributions from many and expressing a negative opinion of them ironically is itself not in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia as I understand them. Is any administrator going to look at this blocking for copyright? Or is it not really about copyright? Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the rationale given in the block log and in the block notice both give only copyright violation, whereas it is clear, as you must have been aware, from the comment given by Moneytrees in conjunction with the block notice that copyright was not, in fact the only reason, so I have adjusted the block log to reflect the wider range of reasons. JBW (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:CarinGoering b.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:CarinGoering b.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).
){kind=link}
