User talk:Ottawagalz

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ottawagalz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Ottawagalz, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Tribe of Dan has had to be 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. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal against block[edit]

{{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. I have recently moved to a new apartment, and I am not able to edit as I have inherited a proxy IP. What can I do to change this, as it is probably a result of a previous user. ThanksOttawagalz (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

You'll need to read the directions on the message that informs you you're unable to edit. The {{unblock}} template can only be used when your account has been blocked; there's a different template with extra parameters if your account is affected by an IP block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

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. Doug Weller talk 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|Appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to appeal against my block. I am not a sock. I haven't even made enough posts to be accused of being one. Don't I have to make more posts than I have before I can be accused of copying someone? I am a new user and I am not aware of breaking any rules, and have attracted no attention apart from reverting one post, where I read the evidence for the revert and agreed with it. I don't see how I can provide evidence that I am not a sock when I've hardly even started.

Decline reason:

I don't believe your claim. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 2 February 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.

Ottawagalz (talk) 02:33, 2 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Here is some information that may explain why you have identified me as a sock. Could any of these issues explain why you think I am someone else? I stayed in temporary accommodation before Xmas in a hotel. After Xmas I moved to new accommodation. I recently bought a Mac laptop on ebay, and a Windows laptop. Have I inherited someone else's account details.

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence against you also very strong. The way in which you edit is very similar to the sock master in question. It's very apparent based upon your knowledge of range blocks, OR, RS, reverting edits, using talk pages, bare citations, and how sock puppetry is technically compared during a checkuser process, all indicate that you are not a "new" editor as you so claim. All of these are hallmarks of your editing style and pattern including this type of unblock request. Mkdw ^talk 06:46, 3 February 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.

{{unblock reviewed | I have no idea what a range block is. When I first moved into my new condo I thought I had been blocked, but the second time I logged on it was ok. OR, RS, edists, are all the basics of wikipedia. I have no idea what a checkuser process is. I really do not think that after a handful of edits I can have demonstrated an 'editing style and pattern'. Don't I get some kind of trial period? The link does after all say suspected sock puppet. I thought socks were banned for being disruptive, what have I actually done wrong, apart from the verbatim quotes in my first edits?Ottawagalz (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]