Talk
You appear to have committed a huge copyright violations at User talk:Budgewoi/RoleOfWomen. Please immediately take steps to have this remedied. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
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 User talk:Budgewoi/RoleOfWomen 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.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315027395/sahaja-yoga-judith-coney. 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. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Budgewoi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not sure what I've been blocked for. Harassment? Surely there has been some misunderstanding. Could we talk about this? Budgewoi (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Evidently two of your edit summaries were such serious harrassment or personal attacks that they were oversighted and even I can't view them. You seem to have some disputes with a particular editor and have edit warred over your edits. Please address these issues. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (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.
Budgewoi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There's been no harassment, I think it was a misunderstanding. And no outing of anyone's personal information so I don't understand this. The previous reviewer was not able to explain this. Budgewoi (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Well, I used to have the oversight flag. And I can tell you that when I did, if we based a block on material we had to oversight, it was for very good reason. Particularly if it was indefinite. Especially now that all admins have access to the RevDel tool so there's less need to oversight routinely offensive stuff like nasty outbursts about the Jews or whatever. No ... it takes a lot to get oversighted these days. So, based on the discussion above and my experience, the block is justified even if I can't see what it's about. It may have seemed innocuous, perhaps, to you, but we take privacy and OUTING very seriously. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2023 (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.
Budgewoi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. There is no grand conspiracy to pursue you or silence you. You can appeal to ArbCom or UTRS to be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2023 (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.