User talk:Sloth1979

Copyright problems with Dow Museum of Historic Houses

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Dow Museum of Historic Houses, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.moas.org/dowmuseum.html. As a copyright violation, Dow Museum of Historic Houses appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Dow Museum of Historic Houses has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Dow Museum of Historic Houses and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Dow Museum of Historic Houses with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Dow Museum of Historic Houses.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Place Historic District

Your addition to Gamble Place Historic District has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hairhorn (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

In response to your message on my talk page, please see Wikipedia: donating copyrighted materials for information on using existing text in Wikipedia. You may also want to have a look at Wikipedia: conflict of interest. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

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 ~~~~}}. Hut 8.5 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

@Hut 8.5: How do I request adminship (“RFA") for the page 'Museum of Arts & Sciences (Daytona Beach), on behalf of the Museum? I'm a contributor and a copyright holder of the the museum (MOAS). Is there a process for offering proof/verification for permission to write updates on the wiki page for MOAS? In addition to the links you’ve provided, can you offer any additional clarification on the process for edit updates that have been approved by the Museum? Sloth1979 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Sloth1979[reply]

That's not how adminship works; you cannot be the administrator of a specific article. Please read conflict of interest and paid editing if you represent the museum for information on formal disclosures you must make. The museum cannot grant or deny permission to edit the article about it; any editor is free to edit any article. Articles are typically written and edited by independent editors, not representatives of the subject, summarizing what independent reliable sources state about the topic. We aren't interested in what the museum wants to say about itself, as they can do that on their own website. If there is incorrect information in the article about it, we want to know what that is, but the article will not necessarily say what the museum wants it to say.

Please follow the instructions in the block notice to request unblock, and also read WP:OWN; you may want to show that page to your superiors. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually own the copyright to the material then you would have to prove that before we can use it in articles following the procedure here. Unless you do that we have to assume that you do not in fact own the copyright to the material. In any case if you do work for the museum then your edits were also in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use on paid editing, as 331dot pointed out. Hut 8.5 08:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Sloth1979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Hut 8.5: I understand that my edit behavior was inappropriate in this context, I disclose my COI. I will not repeat the kind of edits for which I was blocked. I will not cause future damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I support the community standard of wikipedia, and wish to contribute in a useful and transparent way. If my request to be unblocked is approved, I will not make direct edits to the page, but will instead propose any suggested changes on article talk pages with supporting documents using third-party reliable, published sources. I will continue following updates on all polices and guidelines in support of Wikipedia standard. Sloth1979 (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2022 (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.

Hut 8.5, I find the unblock request worth considering, do you have any objection? —valereee (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: no objection although I would have preferred some sort of explicit commitment not to add more copyright violations. Hut 8.5 17:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over that in discussion, thanks! —valereee (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]