User talk:Granito diaz

September 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dp76764 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Photophobia, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photophobia

The information you added to photophobia was promotional material for a single glasses manufacturer, and this is not the place to sell glasses. Please do not reinstate this material without citing a reliable, third-party source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY for further information. Rob T Firefly (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kick-Ass (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kick-Ass (film), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Cresix (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please refrain from making unsourced edits to Wikipedia articles, such as your recent removal of a significant amount of content in the Somatotype and constitutional psychology page. I have reverted the changes you made to this page, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. SomatotypeWatchdog (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Tweedle20, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Scr★pIron^IV 19:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rare-earth magnet 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. Scr★pIron^IV 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Magnet. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Granito diaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Magnet. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist(talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biting the newbie

DMacks and ScrapIronIV: I am dismayed by your harsh treatment of this newbie. DMacks, I think it is inappropriate to label an external link to a Phys.org article as spamming, especially since you reverted his removal of the same link from Rare-earth magnet. ScrapIronIV, it seems inconsistent to tag this user for edit warring at Rare-earth magnet when neither you nor DMacks made any comment on the talk page. Many of this user's edits seem quite reasonable to me, so please try to assume good faith and discuss edits calmly.

Of course, I totally agree with your condemnation of the attack on User talk:Tweedle20. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Anyone who has been registered here since 2008 is not a newbie.

2) Removing low quality links is not biting anyone.

3) 3RR warnings are required, and my only other warning was justified - as you said.

Anything else? Scr★pIron^IV 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Anyone with 96 edits is a newbie, however long they have been here. It's the level of experience that matters. 2) Sure, I have no problem with that. 3) True, the 3RR warning was required, but (regardless of the user's experience) I still think you should start a discussion before you get to this stage. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll direct all future newbies to you for discussion. I appreciate your volunteering to take them under your wing. Do you want the incompetents, the edit warriors, the spammers and the vandals, too? Or do just want the newbies? Scr★pIron^IV 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIronIV, try to look at it from this user's perspective. Judging by his earliest edits, he was probably pretty young when he joined Wikipedia. Averaging about 12 edits a year, he can hardly be expected to have a deep understanding of Wikipedia procedures. No one has ever welcomed him or communicated with him except through warnings. And after staying away for a year, he tries to add a link to an educational site on magnetism and to move another link (to a physics news article) to a more appropriate page. In response to these harmless edits, two way more experienced editors gang up on him and put a lot of scary warnings on his talk page. Would it be so hard to be a little friendlier? RockMagnetist(talk) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "ganged up" on anyone. I escalated warnings based upon behavior, of my own accord. WP:POINTy removals of reasonable links because the poor link they added was removed, and they were edit warring over it. My warnings stand alone, as do DMacks' warnings. Take it up with the editor, not with those who advised them of their responsibilities here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From an editor perspective, what I mostly saw is a user with a pattern of adding links that other editors remove and/or that seem to be contrary to WP:EL in various ways. And editor who had already been warned for edits that seemed promotional in some way. An editor who behaved as if he thought edit-warring and not-discussing/responding and such were suitable behavior. No matter how long an editor has been around, repeated/continued problematic behavior reasonably leads to increasingly strident response, no matter the newbie-ness. Once behavior drifts from bold-revert and are part of a pattern, it becomes a strong behavioral problem as much as a simple content one. You should obviously know that context matters, so what's on-topic on one article in an article hierarchy might be inappropriate in a higher- or lower-level one, and a rationalized edit (even if I disagree with the rationale) one might let stand as "eh, difference of opinion, no big deal". I agree with ScrapIronIV here, you're welcome to take this and other newbies under your wing, especially if they are in your editorial area of interest. This is not my area of science, other than the general field of "basic school topics", and I have no plans to sit back and let edits and behaviors I and others disagree with continue unabated in them. DMacks (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context certainly shapes our perceptions, and the first edit I saw by this user was this one, which is pretty good. It is common practice to restart the warning level if the user has not contributed in a month or more. If we want inexperienced editors to behave well, we should model it for them. If we want them to discuss edits, we should do it ourselves; and if we want them to be civil, we should avoid snide comments like the one by ScrapIronIV that you're endorsing. I will continue to welcome inexperienced users when they edit pages on my watchlist, but I am not offering to do other editors' work for them. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Emperor's New Clothes. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 The Emperor's New Clothes. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd

STOP adding the information about Asperger's. It is WP:SYN and misrepresentation of sources. Read Talk:Nerd/Archive 2#Asperger. You also violated copyright. Continue this and you are subject to a block. Sundayclose (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nerd. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nerd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nerd. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to North American Free Trade Agreement has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nerd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cut and paste old archived talk and article content, as you did at Talk:Nerd, especially without adding any obvious new editorial commentary. Your edits appeared to be disruptive, and have been reverted. It is also problematic when someone pastes in old talk or content without clearly identifying the source and context, as that potentially changes the meaning of other people's comments. Without full context, the original meaning can be distorted, and any later comments by the same person which clarified their position are missing. If you want to refer to a previous discussion in the archives, you can just link to it, for example Talk:Nerd/Archive 2#Asperger, in you new comments. Additionally, do not paste in article content without clearly identifying the source, as that is a copyright violation even when the source is somewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Nerd, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nerd. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nerd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nerd. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coenzyme Q10

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coenzyme Q10

READ WP:MEDRS Sundayclose (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nerd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coenzyme Q10

I reverted your addition to the above subject, as the source was WP:Primary. Usually, research requires verification, which this study has not yet had. The authors appear to have a long time interest in Coenzyme Q10 and not autism, which is also a warning sign. JSR (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are one more edit away from a second block, and this one could be permanent

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Coenzyme Q10 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. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Coenzyme Q10 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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. Sundayclose (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your addition to Coenzyme Q10 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nerd, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Jackson Pollock, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Sundayclose (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar

If you want to keep the sentence in, please rewrite it to conform with a neutral point of view and see that Wikipedia is not an not an opinion site, it is merely descriptive.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tærkast (Discuss) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Avatar (2009 film) 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. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to this wiki in violation of our copyright policy and copyright law. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 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).

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

Request reason:

what was so bad in what I posted? why an infinite band?

Decline reason:

Your block is indefinite, not infinite. You posted material that violates copyright laws, and that is very bad. We cannot allow this to continue. In order to be unblocked, you must read and understand our copyright policy, and explain convincingly that you will not violate copyright in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 24 September 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).

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

Request reason:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Titanic_(1997_film) this is other occasion I improved Wikipedia and one of my favorite directors page, look it is still standing 5 years later, no problem there, the same magazine as source, so, I still don't understand why I get accused of copyright infringement and banned forever, for adding 2 well intended sentences Granito diaz (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looks like you don't understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE, so we can't unblock you at this time. Yamla (talk) 15:29, 26 September 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).

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

Request reason:

so, sorry to insist, but I just noticed that the Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 have the same segment about Quatrich being the main villain in all 4 movies, one of them has it since the beginning august 8th, no copyright infringement there, no scandal, so, I don't understand why I get such a serious ban, if that sentence I posted is the truth, and it is in the other 2 pages Granito diaz (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The issue isn't "truth" but "copyright". The paragraph in Avatar 2: Not pasted from elsewhere (for all I can tell), but written in our editors' own words. Your text: Copy-pasted from here in violation of copyright. Huon (talk) 16:19, 30 September 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.