User talk:Aelimian21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reference errors on 12 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm SLBedit. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SLBedit (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Aelimian21. You have new messages at Talk:Akwa Ibom State People's Democratic Party.
Message added 15:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel Ojo[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Samuel Ojo, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Why you deleted my article without even letting me contest the nomination. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Final warning - copyright violations[edit]

Hi Aelimian21. After coming upon the copyright violation and plagiarism in Samuel Ojo, as found by the user who left the warning above (thank you reddogsix), I looked at your other page creations. Finding more copyright violations, I have also deleted Kwara State House of Assembly and Nasarawa State Judiciary and I'd also note that Simon Lalong, deleted for other reasons, was also a blatant copyright violation. As there was an earlier version to revert to, I was able to save and only revision delete some of your infringing edits to Jigawa State House of Assembly. I do not know if I caught all of these types of edits in your history. It would go a long way if, after reading this and understanding the issue, you were to find any other edits where you copied and telling me so I can remove these violations.

I do not know if you were just unaware that you cannot copy and paste previously written material (to be clear, short quotations, clearly marked as such by the use of quote marks and cited to the source of the copying using an inline citation is allowed under fair use; see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text), or whether you did this knowingly. I hope the latter. Regardless, understand that doing so is both illegal, as copyright infringement, and unethical, as plagiarism.

We often grant more leeway for other types of good faith but improper edits, before resorting to blocks, but copyright violations are a problem of a more serious nature. Accordingly, I am posting here under the section header "Final warning", so you clearly understand and are not taken by surprise. Any further similar edits will subject you to an immediate and indefinite block from further editing. That being said, if there's no repeat, there's no problem.

Lastly to make sure you understand the issue more fully, reliable sources are cited to show where the information exists that verifies your additions, but you don't copy what they say. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." You should also understand that copyright infringement is not avoided by surface modification of existing content, e.g., changing a word here and a word there, while substantially retaining the wording, structure and creative expression in the original material. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

May I ask why you have deleted my articles without even notifying me. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit explained, in great detail in the four paragraphs directly above your question, why the articles were deleted. Are you asserting that after reading his explanation you do not understand why it was necessary to delete the content?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I am asking why Fuhghettaboutit deleted my articles without notifying me so I could attempt to fix them and/or make by case on how I disagree. Aelimian21 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Because we don't host copyright-violating material. Period. It puts the Wikimedia Foundation in a legally culpable position and it is why we have a speedy deletion criteria that is used to remove the content as soon as its discovered. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then give me time to fix it; I went on Wikipedia today only to see that 3 of my articles have been deleted due to nonsense copyright claims. I didn't see any copyright volations and neither did anyone else who had seen the articles that were up for weeks. Aelimian21 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If the articles were extant for "weeks" prior to being deleted it's only because the issues weren't detected sooner, not because they were approved in any way. You can ask for deletion review if you believe the deletions were made outside of what is supported by policy, but be aware that no admin will restore content that violates our copyright policies.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for responding Ponyo. Aelimian21, you cannot "fix" copyright violations. They are illegal and plagiarism, taint the page history in a very serious manner, and there really is no "disagreeing" with them; you either infringed or you did not. They can only be fixed if there is a version to revert to in a page history that does not contain them (i.e., what I did with Jigawa State House of Assembly).

If you are saying they were not violations in the first place, I'm all ears. Explain what you mean. I am always willing to listen and will reverse myself if you can substantiate such a claim. For example, there are times when what appears to be a copyright violation, turn out to be what we call a reverse copyvio—content posted here was actually first and the external source copied from Wikipedia. However, that is not at play here. Let's be concrete and use an example. You created Nasarawa State Judiciary on February 18, 2017. Here's a passage from it:

"The State High Court hears and determines appeals from decisions of Magistrates and Area Courts in criminal matters. It also hears and determines appeals from District Courts for civil causes. In addition, appeals from Area Courts in all civil causes other than customary or Islamic personal law or causes, lie to the High Court."
And here's a quote from a site I reference below with a footnote (which, by the way, states at the bottom "Copyright © 2016 Nasarawa State Government of Nigeria. All rights reserved" – not that this matters; we assume all content is fully non-free copyrighted unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary):
"The State High Court hears and determines appeals from decisions of Magistrates and Area Courts in all criminal matters. It also hears and determines appeals from District Courts in all civil causes. In addition, appeals from Area Courts in all civil causes other than customary or Islamic personal law or causes, lie to the High Court."[1]

References

  1. ^ "The Judiciary: Briefs on the Nasarawa State Judiciary". Nasarawa State Government of Nigeria. Retrieved June 13, 2017.
I know this content predates the article you created because I can see a snapshot of it in the Wayback Machine from November 10, 2016. So, explain yourself. What "nonsense copyright claims" are there. And if you can't, acknowledge you now understand these issues and won't copy and paste other people's writing again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Still tell me the issue, then I can fix it instead of removing the whole article. I must have forgotten to add quotes on those. The fix is simple: move a few words, remove the violation, or insert quotation marks. You did not even notify me. Aelimian21 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You're not getting it. This quote is a smaller part of larger swath of copied content, that was not just a mistake because you did it multiple times in multiple articles. You do not get informed first. Copyright violations are removed immediately, with prejudice. You got informed above, after I protected Wikipedia by deleting your violations of the law. It cannot be fixed. It will not be undeleted. Don't do it again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it could have been fixed you could have done many things: you could have removed the content, you could have fixed the content, and if you were feeling lazy you could tell me to fix or remove the content. If I could access those articles I could change them; none of the deletions were necessary. Aelimian21 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Every revision of an article is in the page history. Each can be accessed. That page history cannot be retained if it has illegal content in it. If there's a version to revert to, then the other revisions can be deleted. If there's no revision that's not tainted, there's no revision that can be kept.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the page history so that I can recreate the pages; or you could undelete them, Lord Administrator. Aelimian21 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm deeply, deeply concerned that you asked for this. This is absolutely inappropriate. You are very clearly asking Fuhghettaboutit to place Wikipedia in legal jeopardy so you can have access to inappropriate content you introduced. This will not happen, and it is totally inappropriate for you to ask. --Yamla (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for word-for-word copying and pasting after the above discussion (I'm a bit gobsmacked that you did this in your second edit after your last post above). Specifically, you added in this redacted edit: "Rimi is home to Rimi Wind Farm, a '10MW project that can provide power for over 2,200 homes.'", copied from here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Just as a point of clarification, the quote marks in the above excerpt were added by me to indicate I was quoting, and the apostrophes were to indicate the content that was copied (except for one word) verbatim from the source. The original had no quote marks or apostrophes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is the one article that I sourced, isn't everything copyright if I state what is in the article. Please, Unblock me this is absurd.

Decline reason:

This unblock request is incoherent, but I guess what you are trying to say is that you think it's not a violation of copyright if you copy exact text but provide a reference to where you are copying from. That's incorrect. That would still be a violation of copyright and isn't permitted. That's different from quoting text and providing a source for the quote, but that's not what you were doing (and wouldn't have been appropriate here). As such, I'm letting the block stand. Copyright violations are very, very important because they place the entire Wikipedia project in jeopardy. We need to be absolutely sure you understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU before we'd consider unblocking you, and at the moment, it's clear you do not. Yamla (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Sorry if my first post was slightly incoherent to you. I am saying that I used 1 article to write that blurb of course the content will be similar. Also I did use quotes on the page. As it is clear that I seem to find it difficult to abide by the copyright regluations I will review WP:COPYRIGHT which I will put into practice after hopefully being unblocked.

Decline reason:

Your statement "I used 1 article to write that blurb of course the content will be similar" rings alarm bells for me. What you will need to do is take some time to review WP:COPYRIGHT and then request an unblock by demonstrating that you understand the policy. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:43, 21 June 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I now understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will now also use a grammar checker to make sure that I do not enter any material that breaches regulations. Edit: For clarification PhilKnight, most grammar checkers including the one that I will use have a plagiarism feature built in. That is what I will use for my future edits; and it will correct any mistakes in grammar as well.

Decline reason:

You do not need a plagiarism checker to tell you whether or not you are copying material from another source - if you genuinely can not tell when you are actually copying something, then unblocking you would be a danger to Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I don't believe that is a clear rational. The checker is simply a reinforcer, something that is a positive not a reason for refusal. Yes, the check isn't needed but it appears as if I sometimes fail at changing the text enough to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I now understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will now also use a grammar checker to make sure that I do not enter any material that breaches regulations. For clarification, most grammar checkers including the one that I will use have a plagiarism feature built in. That is what I will use for my future edits; and it will correct any mistakes in grammar as well. The checker is simply a reinforcer, something that is a positive not a reason for refusal as was the case for the 3rd refusal. Yes, the check isn't needed but it appears as if I sometimes fail at changing the text enough to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. Vanjagenije, I have explained my understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability.

Decline reason:

If you've really read our copyright policies, you would have known that you're not supposed to rewrite a copyrighted text to not look like copyright violation. Instead, you should write text yourself. Enough unblock requests, talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2017 (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.


How is using a grammar checker going to help you not breach copyright? PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Max Semenik (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18661 was submitted on Jul 05, 2017 23:37:15. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18688 was submitted on Jul 09, 2017 20:37:48. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18773 was submitted on Jul 18, 2017 14:27:38. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18811 was submitted on Jul 24, 2017 02:23:24. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Vanjagenije for the clarification and the talk page access. I would like to know everything that I will need to put in my appeal because it has become clear that some admins love to be as vague as possible. Aelimian21 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unblock requests[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I now understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I sometimes fail to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. Vanjagenije, I have understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability. Aelimian21 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To me this reads as if you still intend to copy first and then "remove doubts" from a copied core. That won't work. Huon (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I now understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. Vanjagenije, I have understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability. Huon, like I have said numerous times before that is what I did for the Rimi edit that is not what I intend to do for future edits. Sorry if the wording was confusing. Aelimian21 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. In order for the reviewing administrator to assess this, please address the following questions in your next unblock appeal:
  • 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  14:52, 6 October 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. I know to not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site. Wikipedia uses grant free access to content. Vanjagenije, I have an understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability. Huon, like I have said numerous times before that is what I did for the Rimi edit that is not what I intend to do for future edits, and Yunshui  I have been stating those things for the last 7 months. Aelimian21 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)



  1. Copyright is the right that a creator has for their work and its use.
  2. Wikipedia uses grant free access to content as said above many works are also licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
  3. We do not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site.
  4. If it had a reason for why its usage would be fair use within US law and the policy of Wikipedia.
  5. I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Aelimian21 (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted by User:Yamla below, your answer to question #4 is not correct. So I'm declining your unblock request. Please try again. Also, your comment "I have been stating those things for the last 7 months" does not inspire confidence. This hints that you believe you were correct in your understanding of copyright during all those months, and that everyone criticizing you was wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2017 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. I know to not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site. Wikipedia uses grant free access to content. Vanjagenije, I have an understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability. Huon, like I have said numerous times before that is what I did for the Rimi edit that is not what I intend to do for future edits, and Yunshui I have been stating those things for the last 7 months. Aelimian21 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)



# Copyright is the right that a creator has for their work and its use. # Wikipedia uses grant free access to content as said above many works are also licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). # We do not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site. # If it had a reason for why its usage would be fair use within US law and the policy of Wikipedia. Also contact can be made with the copyright holders and they can allow the use of content under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license. # I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Aelimian21 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, it appears that over the last few weeks, no admin has been willing to unblock you based on this request. You can try to make a new, more convincing request - but please note that repeating this request may be considered disruptive, and may result in your access to this page being revoked. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 15 January 2018 (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.


Please, give detailed answers to 5 questions posted by Yunshui above. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Aelimian21, I was about to decline your latest unblock request when I realised I had already declined a previous one, so I'll have to leave this to someone else. But I have reviewed the whole of this talk page, and I was shocked to see how uncooperative you have been all along with people who do understand Wikipedia's copyright policies. At this point, it is not acceptable for you to just say you understand copyright policy now and that you will not break it again - we need to be convinced of that, not just told it.

    In your latest unblock request you add "I have been stating those things for the last 7 months", but you clearly have not. If you want any chance of being unblocked, answer Yunshui's questions, specifically, one at a time, and in enough detail to make it absolutely clear to us that you understand the questions and the answers. If you do not do that, you will not be unblocked, and you stand a very good chance of having your talk page access revoked again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To the reviewing admin, I'm volunteering to assist Aelimian21 after his unblock and would check his edits periodically to ensure he doesn't violate WP:COPYVIO again. And to Aelimian21, you need to provide convincing proof that you will not violate copyright again by answering Yunshui questions, as it is a really serious issue. Having once been blocked myself, I tell you all it takes is just acknowledge you were wrong, and convincingly tell whoever is interested in unblocking you to unblock you that you intend to change, that's all. @Boing! said Zebedee:, would you mind taking a look at this again once he does that. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, "all it takes is just acknowledge you were wrong, and convincingly tell whoever is interested in unblocking you to unblock you that you intend to change" is a little misleading as it conflicts with the requirement to provide specific answers to Yunshui's questions - Aelimian2 has already acknowledged mistakes and told us they won't be repeated, but that's not sufficient. I have this talk page on my watchlist and I, or another admin, will respond to any further input from Aelimian2. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to the question, "*Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?", you say, "Permission must be asked of the owner to use the content." This is not correct. It doesn't discuss what form the permission would take and does not consider WP:FU. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


:As a note, this request is identical to the two posted on 12/3/17. SQLQuery me! 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Nevermind - that's not right. SQLQuery me! 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aelimian21 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I understand that the editing work I put on Rimi could be grounds for copyright liability. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Like I have stated I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and will put that into practice. I know to not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site. Wikipedia uses grant free access to content. Vanjagenije, I have an understanding of the block; I understand that my edits could be grounds for copyright liability. Huon, like I have said numerous times before that is what I did for the Rimi edit that is not what I intend to do for future edits.

# Copyright is the right that a creator has for their work and its use. # Wikipedia uses grant free access to content as said above many works are also licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). # We do not use materials that could infringe upon copyrights as it could incriminate the site. # If it had a reason for why its usage would be fair use within US law and the policy of Wikipedia. Also contact can be made with the copyright holders and they can allow the use of content under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license. # I have reviewed WP:COPYRIGHT and I hope to put this into practice after being unblocked. I will double check my edits as it appears as if I had sometimes failed to remove any doubt about copyright. Aelimian21 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I think you understand. I'm happy to unblock you. I will unblock you with the following stipualtions. You will not copy-paste material into Wikipedia. You will not upload any image into Wikipedia that you did not take personally. You will not upload screen shots and claim them as your own. You will completely rewrite any material you add to Wikipedia so that it bears no resemblance to material elsewhere. You will not closely paraphrase and claim as your own work. You will make no edit without citing a source. If there is any doubt in your mind that the edit meets these conditions, you will not make it. You understand that not adhering to these conditions may result in an immediate block. Welcome back -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Battle of Monte Cassino have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Monte Cassino. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon

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. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You were warned. You continued your edit-warring as 89.204.153.66 (talk · contribs) and so I have blocked you for one week. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean I was warned? Look at the timestamp I edited that before you put anything on my talk page. Aelimian21 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You received this warning more than 24 hours before your edit with the IP address. You received this warning just short of four hours before your edit. You received my warning to you, a little less than nine minutes before your edit. And you didn't need any warnings at all. You know perfectly well about these policies, having been blocked for violating WP:EW before. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
After receiving the first communication I thought I would be fine reverting if I gave solid reasoning which I than did at 00:39, 3 April 2018‎. I then didn't touch the article for hours. 89.204.153.66 (talk · contribs) is someone else who just agrees with me like many others do. Aelimian21 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimitris Kammenos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Aelimian21. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Aelimian21. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orkney Manifesto Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)