Rtirenji
July 2019 edit
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Book of Dede Korkut, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 edit
Your addition to A Man of Integrity has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
@Begoon: If you pay a little attention you will find that it has ref. link from festival de cannes website not THAT site. which you imagine. apology will be accepted. Rtirenji (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Read the links above and familiarise yourself with policy. It doesn't matter where you copied the content from, the fact that you copied it is the problem, and infringement. I was aware that the content is present in more than one place - hence the words "or similar".
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. Placing a reference does not negate the copyright violation.
I suggest that after your block you do more researching of policy from the links provided, more listening to the good advice you have been given, more heeding that advice and less indignantly arguing the toss from a position of uninformed ignorance. Good luck. -- Begoon 14:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)- I have blocked you for one week for the spamming (see top of this page) and now for copyright violations. The copyright violation is from the site noted by Begoon. The Cannes website, given the formatting of the text, probably copied it from the other site. In any event, even if you copied the text from the Cannes site, attribution in the form of a ref does not cure the copyright violation. Your lack of insight into policy and your misconduct is as great a concern, if not greater, than your violations of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23:
Rtirenji (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
you have time to ban user, but dont have time to check the ref. link. you can find thousand of site which same text that is in cannes site. that paragraph has a source and that sources added in text. after this showing your power and rolling the rules, give me a reference that using text from cannes site is not allowed and it will punished by a week restriction. Rtirenji (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have checked the reference link you gave. I'm pretty sure so has Bbb23 since they commented on the layout. Adding a source to the article does not mean that copy-pasting text from that source is no longer a copyright violation. Bbb23 explained that above, too. Since you still do not see how your conduct is inappropriate, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. The relevant policy is WP:COPYVIO, plus copyright law. Huon (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2019 (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.
@Huon: i dont have any problem with your non-sense act, I ask for a simple description for banding a user indefinitely for adding a text from cannes. Rtirenji (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have violated copyright. After an explanation, you still thought what you did was appropriate. That makes it highly likely that you would continute to violate copyright. To protect Wikipedia from copyright infringements, I prevented you from editing until you can demonstrate a sufficient understanding of copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Huon: that user accuse me to adding text from a copyrighted page that I did not, and it need to be explained and refer to the ref link. you meant this as violating (something). EVEN if it was, I did not ANY EDIT after that, to name it as "continue to violate copyright". this is what I don't get, why you banding users for their explanation? it looks like, I ban users cause he will do something. Rtirenji (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any difference whether the text you added was from one copyrighted page or from another copyrighted page; it's a copyright violation either way, and Bbb23 said so above. Yet you keep arguing that point as if it were significant. And yes, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, so you indeed are blocked for what you likely would do if unblocked, based on your past conduct and your comments here. Huon (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Huon:, no this is the story;I added some text and I did not hide the source of that text and what I didnt know was the cannes site is copyrighted, a user undid my edit and accused me to use some-other site, I told him/her the main ref. and no more edit I did, Another user ban me for that explanation. I asked for WHY, you come and ban me indefinitely. what we have is an user which add (JUST) a copyrighted text, and you banded him for indefinite. your reasons like "you would continue to violate copyright" based on nothing and no history, don't satisfy me, so unblock. Rtirenji (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think we're past the point where it matters whether what I say satisfies you. You are welcome to request another review of your block via the
{{unblock}}template; another admin will review that request. In my opinion, your continued arguments about irrelevant side issues, such as which copyrighted site you took the text from or whether you hid the source or not, shows a basic lack of understanding of copyright and how it is relevant to Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Huon:,you make it worth, if some one ask about copyrighed site, you will ban it? I dont think wiki works like that. i knew about unblock, but I try to found out why you did such things. Rtirenji (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Rtirenji (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I added some text and I did not hide the source of that text and what I didnt know was the cannes site is copyrighted, a user undid my edit and accused me to use some-other site, I told him/her the main ref. and no more edit I did, Another user ban me for that explanation. I asked for unblock, then anouther user come and ban me indefinitely. I asked for reason, and what I get is , "you would continue to violate copyright", eveyone could do, but I did not any edit after that he/she could judge. what he/she did is, one edit, ban for indefinite. Rtirenji (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
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. Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 28 August 2019 (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.
@Yunshui:
- copyright generated to protect the value who make a text .
- wiki is open source and every one can use it.
- cause changing the copyright level wiki is not allow to use the copyrighted stuff.
- I dont know, so I dont add.
- after reading whole licence instructions.
Your draft article, Draft:Mir Yaghoub Sangtarash edit
Hello, Rtirenji. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mir Yaghoub Sangtarash".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. kingboyk (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@kingboyk i could not to add it as a article, if you can do it please. Rtirenji (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)