User talk:Lazio gio
|
Hey, perhaps you should study the Wikipedia rules of etiquette. And if you have something to say to me, at least sign it. Thanks.Ryecatcher773 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Scott Latchem
[edit]The article Scott Latchem has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.
Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- No Guru 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to Steve Feinberg
[edit]Message posted on Monday, May 14, 2007
[edit]
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Steve Feinberg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_40/b3953110.htm in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Steve Feinberg with a link to where we can find that note;
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Steve Feinberg with a link to the details.
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Steve Feinberg saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.
It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
~Matticus TC 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
appeal my block
[edit]I am not Vince B, this is ridiculous. How can you even mistake me? Please compare my edits. I write about American sports and Central European History, that is it. I do not mean to offend anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs)
- Hello, my wikipedia name is lazio_gio
- You can reach me at lazio_gio@easy.com
- I feel I have been unfairly blocked, I am not a sock puppet of Vince B. What evidents do they have? I have appealed to the blocking administrator but he is on vacation. Please look into my case (I am not logged in because I am even prevented from editing your discussion page)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.233.75 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure why you messaged me about this. I am not a Wikipedia administrator, so I can't do anything about it. The only contact I have had with you was last month, and was nothing to do with any suspected sockpuppetry (it's just that caution message above about creating articles that are copy-pasted from copyrighted sources - see the deletion log here). I routinely patrol newly-created pages to check they comply with Wikipedia's policies. I haven't had any other business with your activities on Wikipedia since. If you want to appeal against the block, place the {{unblock}} template on your (logged in) user talk page, along with your reasoning, and an administrator will review the block. Thank you. ~Matticus TC 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
unblock
[edit]
Lazio gio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
No reason given. — Yamla 17:53, 14 June 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
please unblock me, I am not Vince B, compare our contributions, this case is absurd
all I can say is look at the evidence
[edit]look at the articles I have edited. Just because I offended one sensitive administrator does not mean I should be blocked. I have not written anything offensive or anything that is untrue on any wikipedia sites. lazio_gio@easy.com
Lazio gio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
You have to outline a reason for unblocking. You have not. — IrishGuy talk 13:43, 15 June 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The administrator said no reason given, look at all of the reasons I have given on the discussion page
Lazio gio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
no reason given — — OcatecirT 17:42, 22 June 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Will an administrator please read everything I have written on my talk page, look at my contributions, compare them with Vince B, and see clearly that I am not him. Thank you
- I have left a message for the deleting admin asking for more information as I am also unfamiliar with VinceB. Please bear with us. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
unblock
[edit]Lazio gio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
Please do not repeatedly use the unblock template. Your requests have been repeatedly declined. Please email the blocking administrator to discuss the situation. — Vassyana 02:38, 5 July 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I want to create an article about Kálmán Mikszáth but I still cannot log in.
I am not Vince B, this is ridiculous. How can you even mistake me? Please compare my edits. I write about American sports and Central European History, that is it. I do not mean to offend anyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs). Hello, my wikipedia name is lazio_gio You can reach me at lazio_gio@easy.com I feel I have been unfairly blocked, I am not a sock puppet of Vince B. What evidence do they have? Please ask Duja why he did this?
- I've reviewed your contributions, and they seem pretty similar to those of VinceB to me, but I'll leave the unblock request up for an admin who is more familiar with VinceB to review. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, OK. WP:RFCU, point 1, states that "obvious, disruptive sock puppets" should be "Blocked. No checkuser is necessary." Your editing on May 20-21 exactly matched the one of banned VinceB (talk · contribs): throw in POV statements about prosecuted Hungarians in articles related with Hungarian history and neighbors [1]. Your discussion with User:PANONIAN was the last drop that convinced me [2]. Compare VinceB's bashing of PANONIAN [3] [4].
- I will show some good faith now and unblock you, attributing the incident to a coincidence. Please stay away from controversial topics if you can't obey neutral point of view, citing sources and civility policies. Duja► 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)