User talk:AsteriodX

FM Addis 97.1 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to FM Addis 97.1. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Endale Haile

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.

A tag has been placed on Endale Haile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.theioi.org/ioi-news/current-news/introducing-the-new-ombudsman. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

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. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Whpq (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you Mr. Whpq for noticing copyright infringement. For second time, I would learn about my mistake and positively contribute to Wikipedia. Give me second chance please? AsteriodX (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2025 (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.

A preemptive warning. Do not copy and paste answers or use AI to generate your response. Doing so is a sure-fire way to lose access to your talk page and any possibility of an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sure, I'll elaborate these points:

What is copyright?
- Copyright in Wikipedia sense denotes any contents (texts or image) that is protected by copyright law, stipulates the owner rights to copy, distribute and publish the material. * How is Wikipedia licensed?
- Wikipedia is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA), allowing to reuse the original material by altering, redistributing and even authorizing it. This gives free license. The other one is GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which grants any copyrighted material, redistribute and use with the same license.
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
- Wikipedia prohibits copyright contents like close paraphrasing (a slight change of source texts and write in Wikipedia page, but with the same content from the source text. This is because Wikipedia, as I aforementioned, is a "free encyclopedia" that is constructed by volunteer editors. They are not influenced by external opinion and ideas and their approach to Wikipedia is freely contribute, share their own knowledge with the aim of expanding factual knowledge across the web. Wikipedia is by far fact-checking reliable reference tool than most of sites across the web. In addition, people contribution to Wikipedia is crucial for expanding its projects and making Wikipedia ubiquitous across the web. Thus, Wikipedia should distance from any external influence (like politics, religion and culture) and maintains neutral point of view (NPOV).
Under what circumstances can Wikipedia use copyright contents?
- Wikipedia excepts copyright contents by using fair use policy. This policy enables to access copyright materials for limited purpose than the originality. Wikipedia's use fair use is to demonstrate for educational purpose only, not stealing the owner rights in illegal manner. It includes minimal, non-commercial and attribution uses.
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
- So, I should be aware of any Wikipedia policies, and before committing, I should ensure these policies can impact my editing privilege and Wikipedia's reputation. Wikipedia is free and friendly to common editors to share their own knowledge and ideas, and accepts our overall knowledge. I've learned this through Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your answers to the policy knowledge questions demonstrate a poor understanding of our copyright policy. At Endale Haile (deleted), Derba MIDROC Cement, etc., you have used copyrighted content on Wikipedia, something which if unblocked you are likely to do again. I am therefore not prepared to unblock you. arcticocean ■ 23:06, 31 January 2025 (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 claim "Wikipedia is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)". This is not the full story. Please correct that. Additionally, your answer to "Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?" is basically completely wrong in every respect and your answer there is quite concerning, as is your answer to "How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?". --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I gave my reason, I promised and I won't do it again and why still I'm blocked? I answered those questions to admin. Now I'm learned how not use copyright infringement. AsteriodX (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yamla explained which questions you answered incorrectly. You will not be unblocked until you can make clear that you have studied Wikipedia's copyright policies and fully grasp them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 2 February 2025 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'll answer Yamla's two questions, which are totally wrong.

Wikipedia has two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). GFDL was initially released for supporting software manuals that are free software, while CC BY-SA is free creative purpose and does not require copyright tag. Software like Wikipedia is free creative and its content is fully open source. In GFDL, we can not extract Wikipedia content other than text as general reference tool. So in late 2000s, Wikipedia decided to merge both GFDL and CC BY-SA into two, allowing more freedom to reuse, share and modify its all contents under Creative Common. Its text also became free then after.
Copyright materials are not permitted on Wikipedia because as I mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is an open source and its main objective is to deliver knowledge and facts with purity, also as part of wiki project, editors contribution generally are not ascribed for other derivative works. Copyrighted material cannot be altered in Wikipedia so, it can hinder its freedom to modify and reuse, and can impact its reputation in project expansion.

Addressing Blue Sonnet question below: While some copyright materials are exempted under fair use policy, copy-pasting is not allowed in Wikipedia. Consequences result in loss of the encyclopedia's reliability and may face legal issues. Admin get notified the user who adds copyright content without permission. Doing the same problem repeatedly will cause you to lose editing privilege and may be blocked from editing, which is used for preventing further disruption.

Now I'm learned from these policies and cautiously examine any source texts and clearly write the main point of the idea in the statement. In past, I was very quick for decision and insert copy-paste texts to save my time, but for the future I won't hurry to do the same thing.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'll answer Yamla's two questions, which are totally wrong.
* Wikipedia has two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). GFDL was initially released for supporting software manuals that are free software, while CC BY-SA is free creative purpose and does not require copyright tag. Software like Wikipedia is free creative and its content is fully [[open source software|open source]]. In GFDL, we can not extract Wikipedia content other than text as general reference tool. So in late 2000s, Wikipedia decided to merge both GFDL and CC BY-SA into two, allowing more freedom to reuse, share and modify its all contents under Creative Common. Its text also became free then after. 
* Copyright materials are not permitted on Wikipedia because as I mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is an open source and its main objective is to deliver knowledge and facts with purity, also as part of [[Wiki software|wiki project]], editors contribution generally are not ascribed for other derivative works. Copyrighted material cannot be altered in Wikipedia so, it can hinder its freedom to modify and reuse, and can impact its reputation in project expansion.

Addressing [[User:Blue Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] question below:
While some copyright materials are exempted under fair use policy, copy-pasting is not allowed in Wikipedia. Consequences result in loss of the encyclopedia's reliability and may face legal issues. Admin get notified the user who adds copyright content without permission. Doing the same problem repeatedly will cause you to lose editing privilege and may be blocked from editing, which is used for preventing further disruption.
Now I'm learned from these policies and cautiously examine any source texts and clearly write the main point of the idea in the statement. In past, I was very quick for decision and insert copy-paste texts to save my time, but for the future I won't hurry to do the same thing. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'll answer Yamla's two questions, which are totally wrong.
* Wikipedia has two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). GFDL was initially released for supporting software manuals that are free software, while CC BY-SA is free creative purpose and does not require copyright tag. Software like Wikipedia is free creative and its content is fully [[open source software|open source]]. In GFDL, we can not extract Wikipedia content other than text as general reference tool. So in late 2000s, Wikipedia decided to merge both GFDL and CC BY-SA into two, allowing more freedom to reuse, share and modify its all contents under Creative Common. Its text also became free then after. 
* Copyright materials are not permitted on Wikipedia because as I mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is an open source and its main objective is to deliver knowledge and facts with purity, also as part of [[Wiki software|wiki project]], editors contribution generally are not ascribed for other derivative works. Copyrighted material cannot be altered in Wikipedia so, it can hinder its freedom to modify and reuse, and can impact its reputation in project expansion.

Addressing [[User:Blue Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] question below:
While some copyright materials are exempted under fair use policy, copy-pasting is not allowed in Wikipedia. Consequences result in loss of the encyclopedia's reliability and may face legal issues. Admin get notified the user who adds copyright content without permission. Doing the same problem repeatedly will cause you to lose editing privilege and may be blocked from editing, which is used for preventing further disruption.
Now I'm learned from these policies and cautiously examine any source texts and clearly write the main point of the idea in the statement. In past, I was very quick for decision and insert copy-paste texts to save my time, but for the future I won't hurry to do the same thing. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'll answer Yamla's two questions, which are totally wrong.
* Wikipedia has two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). GFDL was initially released for supporting software manuals that are free software, while CC BY-SA is free creative purpose and does not require copyright tag. Software like Wikipedia is free creative and its content is fully [[open source software|open source]]. In GFDL, we can not extract Wikipedia content other than text as general reference tool. So in late 2000s, Wikipedia decided to merge both GFDL and CC BY-SA into two, allowing more freedom to reuse, share and modify its all contents under Creative Common. Its text also became free then after. 
* Copyright materials are not permitted on Wikipedia because as I mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is an open source and its main objective is to deliver knowledge and facts with purity, also as part of [[Wiki software|wiki project]], editors contribution generally are not ascribed for other derivative works. Copyrighted material cannot be altered in Wikipedia so, it can hinder its freedom to modify and reuse, and can impact its reputation in project expansion.

Addressing [[User:Blue Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] question below:
While some copyright materials are exempted under fair use policy, copy-pasting is not allowed in Wikipedia. Consequences result in loss of the encyclopedia's reliability and may face legal issues. Admin get notified the user who adds copyright content without permission. Doing the same problem repeatedly will cause you to lose editing privilege and may be blocked from editing, which is used for preventing further disruption.
Now I'm learned from these policies and cautiously examine any source texts and clearly write the main point of the idea in the statement. In past, I was very quick for decision and insert copy-paste texts to save my time, but for the future I won't hurry to do the same thing. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @AsteriodX:, blocks are only intended to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Copyright is incredibly important to get right, because it can cause huge legal problems.

Your block appeal was declined because you didn't answer the questions correctly, which means the admins who have considered your requests aren't convinced that you won't cause exactly the same problem if you continue to edit. The onus is on you to make sure that you fully understand and can comply with the copyright policy when editing.

Please re-read through Yamla's post underneath the declined appeal, which will explain why it was declined and the areas you need to focus on in order to submit a successful appeal. You need to understand how and why we do things in the way we do, and be able to prove that you do - cutting and pasting an answer from somewhere or taking it from AI can't show how you as a person understand the copyright policy. We also have to be strict because it's such an important thing to get right. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet: Ok let me explain one more time. Wikipedia has two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The relations between the two are both permit reuse, sharing and modification either commercially and non-commercially under the same license. CC BY-SA allows reuse for general purpose and available for free. GFDL allows free use for software documentations, textbooks and other digitally written material. Wikipedia's use of GFDL is to ensure its open source and usually with objective for education purpose. Anyone can copy-paste content on Wikipedia to refer as long as they attribute to the same license. There is no restriction. Both combo (CCBY-SA/GFDL) are best ideal for Wikipedia's openness without legal restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsteriodX (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Can you please make sure you sign your posts, see we can track who's talking to who? You need to type four tildes (this is a tilde: ~ ) at the end of your post.

You're focusing on the copyright of material that's already on Wikipedia, but that's not the problem.

The problem is that you're taking already-copyrighted material from elsewhere and putting it on Wikipedia.

That's what you need to address - why you can't do that and what problems it causes for Wikipedia if you do. Then, explain how you'll make sure it doesn't happen again in your future editing. You need to address those three specific points.

It's too late once it's on here, Wikipedia's own copyright can't apply to someone else's already-copyrighted work so you don't need to explain Wikipedia's own copyright again.

I won't go into more detail as I don't want to give you the answer, but you need to understand why you've been causing problems and why it's such a big issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethio-Engineering Group moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ethio-Engineering Group. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]