User talk:Happydad69
November 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Aaron Liu. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alice Walker, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also see WP:OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did with this edit to Bernice Johnson Reagon. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Barbara Smith. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Adakiko They haven't edited since your last warning, pretty sure this warning was inappropriate Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Beverly Smith. Knitsey (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Knitsey uhh they haven't edited since Adakiko's warning, pretty sure this warning was inappropriate Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Check the edits. It was a reversion of an edit made earlier. Nearly all of the edits have been reverted as they're unreferenced. I'm not aware of reversions having to be done in the order the edits were created? I could be wrong though? A few were missed but there isn't any point in adding more warnings as they're at their max anyway. Hence I haven't included more warnings for adding unreferenced information to BLP'S. Hope that makes sense? Knitsey (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the reversion was incorrect, I'm saying that the warning was inappropriate. I'm pretty sure that a user has to commit an offence after a warning was given to upgrade the warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't aware of that. So if I find vandalism, revert, then go to the editors page to warn them and find their previous 3 edits were also vandalism then I can't warn them about the other 3 vandalism edits (after reverting obviously)? Knitsey (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can skip between levels if the vandalism is severe enough Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is it ok to move this to your talk page? I have questions lol. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can skip between levels if the vandalism is severe enough Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't aware of that. So if I find vandalism, revert, then go to the editors page to warn them and find their previous 3 edits were also vandalism then I can't warn them about the other 3 vandalism edits (after reverting obviously)? Knitsey (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the reversion was incorrect, I'm saying that the warning was inappropriate. I'm pretty sure that a user has to commit an offence after a warning was given to upgrade the warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Check the edits. It was a reversion of an edit made earlier. Nearly all of the edits have been reverted as they're unreferenced. I'm not aware of reversions having to be done in the order the edits were created? I could be wrong though? A few were missed but there isn't any point in adding more warnings as they're at their max anyway. Hence I haven't included more warnings for adding unreferenced information to BLP'S. Hope that makes sense? Knitsey (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Naeema Muhammad
[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 Naeema Muhammad, 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 soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://righttoharm.film/fwp_portfolio/naeema-muhammad/ and https://www.animallawconference.org/naeema/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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 deleted 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. Storchy (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Naeema Muhammad
[edit]Hello Happydad69,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Naeema Muhammad for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.