| Revision as of 13:03, 10 May 2018 editMBlaze Lightning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,558 edits Undid revision 840524325 by JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) do not delete other people's commentsTag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:05, 10 May 2018 edit undoCapitals00 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,265 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :*Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has ] issues, just like you do, and they will have to be dealt with as appropriate. ] is not a copyright violation about which you have been told before and your another stale buddy (KA$HMIR) was blocked for making same false claims. It is just interesting to see how two accounts here are engaging in disruption by defending copyright violations from a multiple times indeffed blocked editor. You both have just confirmed it that the issue is serious and a block for copyright violations is warranted. ] (]) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | :*Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has ] issues, just like you do, and they will have to be dealt with as appropriate. ] is not a copyright violation about which you have been told before and your another stale buddy (KA$HMIR) was blocked for making same false claims. It is just interesting to see how two accounts here are engaging in disruption by defending copyright violations from a multiple times indeffed blocked editor. You both have just confirmed it that the issue is serious and a block for copyright violations is warranted. ] (]) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
| {{od}} Read ], ], ] and ]. Also keep ] in mind. ] (]) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | {{od}} Read ], ], ] and ]. Also keep ] in mind. ] (]) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hope you are ready for ]. You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself because it is not going to turn deliberate copyright violation into non-violation. Next time don't participate in a discussion about evident violation of copyrights by a long term copyright violator. Given your own ] about copyrights, you should definitely avoid this area. ] (]) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:05, 10 May 2018
- History of Balochistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Copyright violation started from this diff and it was removed recently with this diff. I am seeing thousands of words were copy pasted from books in form of "quotes" in references that are actually supposed to be short. Capitals00 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Same copyrights violating editor has now restored the copyright violation and provided a misleading edit summary. Given he has been topic banned from uploading files for his copyright violations, I would urge admin to block him for his continued copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is not the blatant case of copyright violations. Kautilya3 was kind enough to explain the concern in their edit summary. Urging for a straightway block is likely due to bad blood between them. samee converse 09:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a blatant case of violation of copyrights involving over thousands of words. NadirAli was already warned for his copyright violations, to which he replied and still he restored the copyright violation. Given his history, it should result in another indefinite block, just like it happens with many others. Why NadirAli couldn't defend himself here? Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Samee. Looks like a retaliatory request because of this. I could not find any copyright violations. These are just quotes inside the citations. They are not any more of a copyright violation than this. This is an article related to a content dispute between these users on Talk:Princely state, so the frustration from there is spilling over. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do, and they will have to be dealt with as appropriate. 1947 Poonch rebellion is not a copyright violation about which you have been told before and your another stale buddy (KA$HMIR) was blocked for making same false claims. It is just interesting to see how two accounts here are engaging in disruption by defending copyright violations from a multiple times indeffed blocked editor. You both have just confirmed it that the issue is serious and a block for copyright violations is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also keep WP:AE in mind. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hope you are ready for WP:BOOMERANG. You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself because it is not going to turn deliberate copyright violation into non-violation. Next time don't participate in a discussion about evident violation of copyrights by a long term copyright violator. Given your own lack of understanding about copyrights, you should definitely avoid this area. Capitals00 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)