User talk:Cardbuff

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Play (American football), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, Just immediately before your reversion back, I supplied the YouTube video source for my edits, which video clearly supports my revisions. Why isn't that enough to meet the No original research/sourcing requirement? Thanks! Cardbuff (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's your own personal analysis of the video. Find a reliable source supporting your analysis of the video, and it has a chance of sticking. .--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As Jpgordon says, the youtube video is not a published analysis of the play, but simply a video of the play. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have once again removed original research by you in the same article, inserted here. 5 and a half years does not change the status of it as original research. I hate to say it, but if you do this again you risk being prevented from editing Wikipedia. If you are unsure of whether material is verifiable or not, use the talk page to get other opinions. @Jpgordon and Binksternet: Noting that I'm issuing another warning about OR here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I sense that Cardbuff has a non-neutral viewpoint in favor of the Cards. It's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Any further insertion of Cardbuff's own analysis of the video will be dealt with severely. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Cardbuff, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Rankings of universities in the United States have been removed, as they appear 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 sources to avoid copyright and 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College and university rankings in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia and Cal Tech. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Play (American football).

Your recent editing history at The Play (American football) 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.

Since you might have missed my other warning above, here is a more explicit one. @Binksternet and Jpgordon: If they continue after this, a block would be fair game IMO. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is quite enough; the user has been doing the same thing for five years.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing The Play (American football) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)