User talk:Maxweber1920

Maxweber1920, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Maxweber1920! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Critical juncture (August 1)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Critical juncture 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:Critical juncture, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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.

Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Critical juncture

Hello, Maxweber1920. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Critical juncture, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Critical juncture has been accepted

Critical juncture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Doric Loon (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manual of Style

The Manual of Style provides instructions for Wikipedia articles. I have corrected Critical juncture to comply with the proper order of elements, and you have changed it back to the incorrect order. Please undo your edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Critical juncture, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Comparative politics 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. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Renat 19:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I wonder how to make or propose a change to a title of an article. Thanks Maxweber1920 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Requested moves. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to David Collier (political scientist), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Reinhard Bendix

Your edit to Reinhard Bendix 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. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing.— Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy

|class=C Maxweber1920 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Maxweber1920. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián L. Mazzuca moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sebastián L. Mazzuca, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca

Hello, Maxweber1920. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sebastián L. Mazzuca (June 29)

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

Also, WP:COI concern not addressed.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca 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:Sebastián L. Mazzuca, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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 the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Greenman (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings including a final warning, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to read this. I have added an image to the democratization entry that I found in the Wikimedia Commons. I have provided extensive references to sources I have drawn on. I have paraphrased some texts. I have used quotation marks quite extensive. I am baffled. I have been working very hard to improve some entries. Maxweber1920 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have really tired to be a good citizen and contribute to Wikipedia. Maybe this is not for me. You take good care of yourself. Maxweber1920 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found some violations of the copyright policy on Norberto Bobbio. You can view the extent of the overlap using this tool. Some of it is quotations (there's actually one lengthy quotation without its closing quotation mark), but there's enough straight copying to constitute a violation. Later I also found a problem on Democratization, where content was copied from this copyright paper. — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me and explaining what you see as a problem. I really appreciate you taking the time.

I used the tool you mention to see the comparison. I did some work on the Bobbio entry last night I believe. I used a source, from an International Encyclopedia. I now see that the prior material in the entry - that was not my work - was taken from "Bellamy, Richard, "Norberto Bobbio", obituary in The Guardian, January 13, 2004." I used a different Bellamy source - Bellamy, Richard, "Norberto Bobbio," in James Wright (ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed., Elsevier, 2015. Thus, a lot of the overlap was due to whoever had worked on the entry before and had copied a lot of material word for word from the Guardian obituary. That is not my responsibility.

Lots of the overlaps in what I wrote in the Bobbio entry yesterday were things like the title of books written by Bobbio. In some cases, the overlap seems nonsensical. I added Anderson, Perry, "The Affinities of Norberto Bobbio," New Left Review 170 (July–August 1988): 3–36. to the Further readings, because this is a source I have read. Now I see that it appears as one of the highlighted overlaps. In other cases, the overlap is simply because Bellamy uses the precise terms that Bobbio uses and I was actually using those words from the actual book by Bobbio. Bobbio was a political philosopher, and he used terms in a precise way. So I was doing my best to convey to the reader Bobbio's thinking. I think the overview I had provided of the work Bobbio produced during his entire career was a service. It is very important that readers be able to find that information at a glance. I am somewhat surprised by the decision to cut that material.

I have been working on a set of authors who have made key contributions to democratic theory, a key issue in the study of politics. I have sought to convey their ideas in a precise manner. I really think it is a shame that this effort is being questioned.

As to the use of the paper by Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson and Pierre Yared in the Democratization entry, I paraphrased what the authors wrote. Since the language in the article, by four economists, is rather technical, I used much of the same language they use. I think that is fair use and it is what academics would consider fair use. I also did put the key conclusion of the article in quotation marks, so as to convey the voice of the authors.

You may also note that I am also very conscious about offering citations, with precise page numbers of the text which I am drawing on.

Well, I am sure I could be more careful. I have set some time aside to improve a number of entries, especially those related to democratization and some scholars who have authored classic works. Maybe I worked too fast, did not take the time I should have to more carefully avoid word-for-word duplication and ensure a correct paraphrasing. But I have made an honest effort to improve a number of entries that I think are important yet were rather weak.

I must say that I was taken aback by your "block." If you choose to keep it, I will move on to other hobbies. If you decide to lift it, I promise to more careful in the future.

All the best Maxweber1920 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you added in your 32 edits since July 10: Diff of Norberto Bobbio. Here's a comparison using Earwig's tool that shows the overlapping content on June 5. So you are correct that some of the overlapping content was there when you arrived. I was aware of this, and cleaned up not only your additions but the content that was there before.

Wikipedia uses a summary style, and adding a lot of quotations (even short ones) is not a very effective writing style, and it's problematic because Wikipedia is aiming to be freely licensed. We have rules about quotations, and what we're supposed to do is use only short quotations, and only if there's no alternative. There's no set limit on the size or number of quotations. That said, Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. Quoting the crux of Bobbio's thinking, using his own words instead of our own, is too much. While you may feel it's vital information for our readers, it's also not particularly compliant with our policies to include it verbatim. So if you can't figure out a way to re-write the content in your own words it's better to leave it out than to resort to huge quotations. Sometimes a good alternative is to offer the reader the info via an external link. Fair use in the way you may have seen it applied elsewhere does not apply to Wikipedia editing. It's either a quotation, or it's prose we have written ourselves in a summary style.

It seems to me that you do understand copyright and why it's important but was careless or rushed in this instance. I would like to see your comments on the over-use of quotations and receive your assurance that when unblocked you will avoid violations of the copyright policy in the future. Again, short quotations are okay but only when there's no alternative.

By the way the June 5 version has very little overlap with the Guardian obituary. — Diannaa (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

I looked over the comparison using Earwig's tool. One of the first paragraphs is this, with the highlighted part being "regarding fascism as a necessary evil against" -- "Bobbio was born into what his Guardian obituary described as "a relatively wealthy, middle-class Turin family" whose sympathies Bobbio would later characterize as "philo-fascist, regarding fascism as a necessary evil against the supposedly greater danger of Bolshevism". In high school he met Vittorio Foa, Leone Ginzburg and Cesare Pavese, and at the university he became a friend of ..." This is not something I wrote.

The tool also highlights things such as "L'indirizzo fenomenologico nella filosofia sociale e giuridica". But I certainly never added any titles of Bobbio's works in Italian.

Finally, this tool highlights things such as the universities that gave Bobbio honorary doctorates and the titles of books - when these are things that are widely available in CVs and there is simply no way to put in one's own words the titles of books and articles. On these sort of specific facts, I tend to check more than one source - even if I then place a single reference to what I think is the best source. So here again this tool is being used to suggest that I copied something from some public source when this is simply not the case.

So I really think it is unfair that this sort of tool is being used to make a case that I did not follow rules regarding copyright. I does not understand this tool fully. But the idea that the tool somehow detected that there was 49.2% chance of a possible violation is not justifiable. And it seems that you initially used this sort of tool to argue that I had picked things up from some published sources in an unfair way, when I would hold that what the overlaps that tool shows were in part (I would not know how to quantify this) due to some other person or involve things that are trivial (such as using the exact same title of a book or the name of some place). I would urge more caution in using tools such as these.

However, moving on, I do see what the goal of Wikipedia is. The goal is to write objective entries, that are informative for the general public, and to use one's own words, while limiting quotations to a minimum. I take your point that it is better to leave some points out if it is too difficult to put it in one's own words. The suggestions of using external links is a good one.

I think I have erred at times when I have been rushed. I acknowledge that. I tend to work in spurts. And I had some free time a few days ago and I was trying to work on several related entries at the same time. I was working late into the night a few days - and I was not as careful as I should have been. I see that I cut some corners, particularly when trying to convey substantive ideas, such as Bobbio's ideas about democracy. Mea culpa.

What I can say (promise) is that I will do my best to be more careful, to work more slowly so as to avoid any possible conflict with copyright policy.

Best wishes, Maxweber1920 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis that includes your edit does not show a percentage of 49.2%; that's from the June 5 version of the article, before you began adding content. Regardless, I don't go by the percentage that Earwig's tool shows; it's not a useful indicator of what will be found. That said, the initial reports that I review are in the queue at CopyPatrol, which uses an external service (Turnitin) to locate for us potential violations of our copyright policy. I am highly experienced at assessing these reports and am well aware of their limitations, as well as the limitations/usefulness of Earwig's tool. I did see enough that I had to clean the article, and when reviewing your talk page, I saw four previous warnings for copyright issues. Hence the block.

I do believe that you understand copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia and will be more careful not to rush or cut corners in the future. The CopyPatrol tool checks all additions over a certain minimum size. Be aware and act accordingly from here on out. I am now unblocking your account. — Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Maxweber1920 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modernization theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Huntington. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

Please see MOS:LAYOUT, especially MOS:SECTIONORDER, to learn the standard order of sections. You moved the "Further reading" section in Mario Bunge to a nonstandard order, and I restored it to the standard order per this guideline. Biogeographist (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I have seen the ordering of sections as I proposed in other entries. So thanks for your advice. Maxweber1920 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca

Hello, Maxweber1920. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sebastián L. Mazzuca".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Michael Mann (sociologist). Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sebastián L. Mazzuca

Hello, Maxweber1920. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sebastián L. Mazzuca".

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. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]