User talk:Gmkoganwiki

Gmkoganwiki, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Gmkoganwiki! 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 Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Suite: Judy Blue Eyes has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Suite: Judy Blue Eyes was changed by Gmkoganwiki (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94699 on 2016-04-23T21:53:38+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to long term edit warring, you've ignored the above guidelines, those referring to original research and copyright violations. If you continue, I'll ask that your account be blocked. What you can do is find a WP:RELIABLE published source to support the content you wish to add, and discuss it at the article's talk page. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's 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. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Suite: Judy Blue Eyes. Katie^talk 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:29, 1 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here. I am new to Wiki and didn't even know there were messages until today. The suite judy blue eyes page states that the Spanish lyric to the final section of the suite is incomprehensible. If someone had a citation that said that the declaration of independence was incomprehensible to English speakers how would I refute that? I speak Spanish and it is as clear as any poem can be -it speaks of the beauty of Cuba and the sadness of the poet that he cannot go there. I did look for a citation that would contain the lyric and its translation but couldn't find one. I have a hard time understanding how the Spanish language is copyrighted material or be considered personal opinion. If I cite that the lyric is taken from the studio album would it then be correct?

Decline reason:

Song lyrics are copyrighted by default. Citing the source will not allow you to violate copyright. Besides, even if there were no copyright issue, we cannot use our personal opinion to refute published sources; see WP:No original research. Huon (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2016 (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.

.