User talk:Lagruekritaro

Welcome!

Hello, Lagruekritaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Abu Hamza al-Zinjibari, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abu Hamza al-Zinjibari

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Abu Hamza al-Zinjibari requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Lagruekritaro, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Abu Hamza al-Zinjibari have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramzi bin al-Shibh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan civil war. 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) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civilians bodies in Rada'a.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Civilians bodies in Rada'a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:44, 26 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi K6ka, i believe that i have not violated any law of Wikipedia, because i was previously blocked because of violating the copyright policy. I fixed that, and with this account i have stopped to violate Wikipedia policy. I appealed to the admin who blocked my account to unblock me, but they have not unblocked my until today. So, i created this new account to resume my work. And even if i met the criteria to by blocked(I honestly believe that i shouldn't, because as i said, i have not violated any law of Wikipedia with this new account, and even if i have, it was done mistakenly), the articles that i have created don't meet the requirements to be deleted. Please reconsider your decision to delete my articles. Thank you for your time. Oh, and something else. You advice me to discus the reason for the speedy deletion of my articles in their talk pages, but i cannot write my opinion there because i am blocked. Please reconsider your reasons that you blocked my. As i said, i have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and i am definitely not a shock puppet, because the reason i was blocked in my previous account, is no more accurate. So i didn't created this new account to mislead other Wikipedia editors or admins.

Decline reason:

Creating a new account to evade a block on your original account is a violation of policy and will see the new account blocked, too. If you cannot persuade admins that the reason for the original block no longer applies but still edit, that's a problem. Huon (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

But what more i can do? I have said multiple times that my new articles don't violate any Wikipedia law, and if you don't believe me, you can see it for your self by reading them. They are perfect articles, like all others that have to do with military history. So please don't delete my articles and ban my account, because i have spend too much time working here, and i have tried as more as i can to not violate any Wikipedia policy. So the reason of the new account is because i wanted to make a clear restart. And even if you ban my account, you shouldn't delete my articles with the reason of my block, because they are good articles, and don't violate any policy of Wikipedia. Let me give an example. A bad man does a good deed. Because hi is a bad man, that does mean that his deed is also bad. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

This account shows you still haven't learnt your lessons. You've continued to violate copyright here, which is what your original account was blocked for. And let's not forget, every edit you made with this account is in violation of WP:BLOCK. Until your original account is unblocked, you are not welcome to edit here. And given you still are violating copyright, there's no chance at the moment that your original account will be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (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.

You're aware there is a "We removed your content due to copyright issues" warning a little higher on this talk page? So yes, you have violated copyright with this account, too, which in turn shows the admins were perfectly justified in not unblocking you. Huon (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]