(Remember to cite your sources or else you could be blocked from editing)
(Avoid copy-pasting)
(Stay wary of and check for copyrights)
Be careful with criteria and sourcing
Sockpuppet investigation
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightiggy, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Ok first of all I apologize, you made similar edits to a known sockpuppeter and it has now been proven you are not the same person so sorry for that but it needed to be checked and confirmed. To answer you question though: The difference between the two is that the murders were separate. The easiest way of knowing is by referring to the Oba Chandler case. He killed four people but he is not technically a serial killer. The reason is because three of the kills were at the same time/location while the other one was separate, therefore, per the criteria, he only killed on two occasions. Beardslee, as far as I can tell, killed two of the victims in the same location and at the same time so therefore he has only killed on two occasions. The difference with John Ruthell Henry is he technically killed on three occasions: Killed victim Roddy in August 1975. He killed Suzanne Overstreet in 1985, kidnapped her son and killed him at a later time so technically it is on three occasions. If he killed Overstreet and her son at the same place/time then he wouldn't fit the criteria, which is exactly why Beardslee does not fit the criteria because he did that. Hope that clears things up/answers the question. Inexpiable (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over the case. It turns out I was wrong. I apologize profusely, he does technically fit the criteria because the two murders were indeed separate. I apologize sincerely. I've restored your edits. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense the article does state they were on the same day as does this source: [1] but only when you read into the case do you find out they were a day apart. But I apologize nonetheless and will look into each case before doing anything from now on. 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Hi-Fi murders has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you again to please use edit summaries so that other editors such as myself don't have to review all of your edits. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
July 2024
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sacha Baron Cohen, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lightiggy! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Oswald Mosley, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://escholarship.org/content/qt99w0p17j/qt99w0p17j.pdf?t=ppzxy7, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Oswald Mosley with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Oswald Mosley saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
You also added similar content to Archibald Maule Ramsay and Right Club. Once you've prepared a copyright compliant version, please feel free to re-add to these two articles. The only article I listed at WP:CP is Moseley. Note, short quoations are okay to keep, but the some of the surrounding prose was also copied. That's what needs to be cleaned up. Thanks. --— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May 2025
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Dan Mitrione has been removed in whole or in part, 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lightiggy. Since you have received at least eight warnings for violations of our copyright policy, I have requested that we open a CCI investigation to look for any further violations that got missed in the past. See details below.— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 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).
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.
File:Terrance Williams permission.pngTerrance Williams permission
I emailed the website for permission. It was granted, albeit after the fact. I did not wait since I recall that this site was consistently open to granting such requests. Lightiggy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your response does not show that you understand how copyright applies to Wikipedia editing.There's several problems with your permission email as well.
The email needs to be sent to the Volunteer Response Team, not to you personally.
The email is too vague, as it does not specify a compatible license.
We have no way of knowing if the person who sent the email is the copyright holder.
The block is not just because of the one recent edit; it's because you have a history of violations of our copyright policy going back years. Before you post another unblock request, please take the time to learn more about copyright and how it applies to editing Wikipedia. Here are some questions I would like you to research and answer:
What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
What is the procedure if you want to ask a copyright holder whether they are interested in donating their copyright material to Wikipedia?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
Maurice Possley is the actual author of this specific article. He said the registry allows quotation of its material with attribution. I'm not sure whether he has emailed you, but I have forwarded them to the two emails you named. Furthermore, if you scroll down to the bottom of the site on Terrance Williams, it actually lists Maurice Possley as author, indicating that he is indeed the copyright holder. However, I will answer the questions anyway since I have figured that this alone is highly unlikely to satisfy you or other admins.
As for the questions:
What is copyright?
* A copyright is a sort of legal protection given to creators of original works. It basically gives the creator or creators the rights to control the way that their work is used (ex. reproduced).
How is Wikipedia licensed?
* Wikipedia functions under the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA).
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
* It causes legal issues and risks the site getting sued.
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
* When it falls under fair use or public domain, after the copyright expires, or when the copyright holder has granted permission.
What is the procedure if you want to ask a copyright holder whether they are interested in donating their copyright material to Wikipedia?
* Tell the author that imported texts must be licensed under the terms of CC BY-SA. I then explain to them that this means that the text may be freely redistributed, used, or modified, but will still require proper attribution of the author or authors on my part. I also tell them that they don't give up any of their rights and are still free to publish the text elsewhere or license it to others
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
* I will be more cautious and regularly consult the guidelines when necessary. I have also saved a copy of the typical confirmation request letter. Lightiggy (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your answers are incomplete/incorrect. We need to be sure that you understand thoroughly before you get unblocked, so please clarify your answers. Our copyright rules have legal implications so it's very important. I've provided some links where you can find the answers:
Please check again at Wikipedia:Copyrights and tell me what licenses Wikipedia is released under.
Not only Wikipedia but you personally could be sued if you add copyright content to the website. You personally are responsible for all your edits, not the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please review Wikipedia:Non-free content and tell us what you learn about under what circumstances non-free content is allowed.
Forwarding a copyright holder's email to the Volunteer Response Team is likely not going to be adequate. The copyright holder needs to send the email directly to the Volunteer Response Team, and the copyright holder needs to tell us exactly which license they want to use. Once they release it under license (or to the public domain), it's irrevocable and applies not only to Wikipedia but everywhere. The rest of your answer about getting permission for copyright works is incorrect as well. Please review Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and then summarize the steps involved in properly getting permissions recorded in the system.
Most of Wikipedia's text and images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GDFL). Non-free content can be allowed, but only under certain conditions. For starters, it must significantly improve the article. There must be no available free alternative that serves the same purpose. The use of the non-free content must be minimal. The non-free content must significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic. It must respect the content's original market role for commercial opportunities.
When asking for permission regarding texts, I must tell the author that if they grant me permission use their content, their content will be licensed under the terms of the CC BY-SA. I will explain to them this means that the text may be freely redistributed and used. I will explain that the text can be freely modified, and modified versions can be freely redistributed and used as well. In all cases, however, I will assure them that CC BY-SA still requires proper attribution of the author or authors. I will also explain that CC BY-SA permits commercial re-uses, provided that such re-use is also under CC BY-SA. In addition, I should explain that the author does not give up any of their rights to use the text, and they are still free to publish it elsewhere or license it to others under any other license. Once I have received a written/e-mail confirmation granting permission, I should ask the copyright holder to email the permission emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and for text permissions to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I should include the original request and confirmation answer, the source, and the Wikimedia link for the image or article. If it's an image, I should add "permission pending", with brackets, to the image description page.
When I am using CC licensed works, the attribution should include the Title, Author, Source, and License. As for public domain works, even if it's not legally required, I should still include the creator's name, the title, and the source, and indicate the public domain status. Copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires attribution. At a minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the page into which the material is copied, saying the content was copied and including a link to the source page. Lightiggy (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These answers are fairly correct and fairly complete.When providing attribution to compatibly licensed texts published outside Wikipedia, we have a set of templates that you can use. See for example Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice. I prefer to use the inline version so that people can tell exactly which content was copied. Here is an example where I added a CC-by-4.0 inline template. Here is an example where I added a {{Source-attribution}} template, which is the one to use for public domain text.I will now unblock your account, as you now have an adequate understanding of copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. I will be monitoring your contribs for a while. Welcome back. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Roger Keith Coleman has been removed in whole or in part, 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk10:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 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).
I see no plausible path for you to be unblocked. You rampantly violated copyright. You then claimed you understood copyright and we could be sure you wouldn't violate it again. You resumed violating copyright. Your actions are placing the entire project in jeopardy. I think this is the end of the line. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 23 July 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.
In hindsight, I definitely shouldn't have posted it. I am have looked at an unedited version of some of the edits rights and now realize that this was a complete violation and it was massive error in judgement. It's a very shallow statement to make given my history, but I want to say that this was an isolated mistake on part. I was worried that there were far too many similarities and the overall quotes were too long, but it was late, I'd slept poorly over the past few days, and hadn't thought about it too hard. I've already read the rules, but will reread them and refrain from making edits unless I clearly know what I'm doing in the future. Lightiggy (talk) 13:33, 23 July 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).
I repeatedly violated Wikipedia’s copyright policy, even after being warned and claiming to understand the rules. My actions damaged the credibility of this site. I am sorry. That being said, a simple apology is rather meaningless at this point given my history. As such, I have an alternative proposal.
I was given more credit than deserved. After constantly violating the rules, I just had to memorize things from a single page and answer a few questions. I was unblocked after only three days. All things considered, it’s fair to say that I got off incredibly lightly.
So, my proposal is to put what I said into practice.
I propose that I should have to make 5,000 rule-abiding edits and 50 successful copyright permission requests. If I can do both, then this proves my trustworthiness to be given one last chance. After that, any further violations will be shown no leniency whatsoever. Until I fulfill both of those tasks, any and all edits of mine must be pre-approved. Lightiggy (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
This is a volunteer project and people will not line up to volunteer to review your edits. I don't see a pathway forward here, either. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 July 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 knew I was monitoring your contribs and you violated our copyright policy anyway.
You uploaded a screenshot to the Commons that contained copyright text, and tagged it as own work. You did this while you were blocked, as part of your unblock request.
Nobody is going to work with you to pre-approve your edits when you make several hundred edits a day. It was difficult enough performing spot checks on the larger edits.
Many of your edits are sourced to newspapers that are difficult or impossible to check.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Beamon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks for uploading File:John Kasper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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. REAL💬 ⬆ 23:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Hi-Fi murders has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sacha Baron Cohen, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Lightiggy! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Oswald Mosley, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://escholarship.org/content/qt99w0p17j/qt99w0p17j.pdf?t=ppzxy7, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Oswald Mosley, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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.
