User talk:Ergateesuk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:19, 10 October 2017

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ergateesuk! I am Mm40 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome Mm40. No questions at present, and thanks for the invite. --Ergateesuk (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zimbabwe

I was debating whether to describe the description of Zimbabwe's shape as POV or not. I use POV on Wikipedia only to describe things I would view as non-NPOV, and I felt it was difficult to decide whether it was a POV comment or not. Describing it as original research (without a referencing article and noting that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a primary source) might have been more accurate and I apologise for describing your input as junk. palfrey (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Christian Party

Based on the lack of recent content on your talk page, it seems you may be just returning to Wikipedia. If so, welcome back! I do not want to discourage your contributing in any way. However, I had to undo your adding of the Scottish Christian Party to the Christian democracy (CD) templates. The templates do not list individual or particular parties, but link to the list, where the parent UK party is already listed. I do question whether it is necessarily a CD party. It is socially conservative alright, extremely so; but I saw no economic progressivism. Perhaps I missed something. Please let me know. Feel free to discuss. If you respond on your talk page, please let me know on my talk page. My watchlist has too many pages to be useful. Thanks. -- Guðsþegn (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Guðsþegn.

I added it because there are other political parties in Template:Christian Democracy such as the European Democratic Party and the European People's Party. I notice that both here and in Template:Christian democracy sidebar you removed the Scottish Christian Party but you left the European People's Party and the European Democratic Party. Why did you leave these ones here?

As to whether the SCP is a CD party, the definition under List of Christian democratic parties is: "Christian democratic parties are those political parties that seek to apply Christian principles to public policy." The SCP manifestly fits this definition. Ergateesuk (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those other parties (EDP and EPP), those are regional Europe-wide parties that are composed of many member parties. The SCP (or rather the CP-UK) has just as much prominence on the lists (template and list article) as the much larger German CDU. So don't feel slighted. The template list of parties is made to link to lists of parties. If we put every national CD party on the template (currently none are), then the template would consume the page. It's just not feasible, or particularly useful.

Regarding whether the SCP is CD or not. It may or may not be. It is currently on the list. However that definition you cited is really inadequate because there is a whole historical and political philosophy behind Christian democracy, that may or may not be being advocated in any significant degree by the SCP. -- Guðsþegn (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ergateesuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ergateesuk, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to John Macleod (theologian) and your sandbox 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your feedback. I thought it had been cited sufficiently by giving a general reference https://banneroftruth.org/uk/about/banner-authors/john-macleod/ as my source for some of the article, but it simply gave User:Primefac scope for wholesale deletion of what took me several hours to check out and create. Mine was no 'cut and paste' job. I notice that he removed the references to the publications, which I have restored manually as I do not have a facility with the computer programmes that 'cut and remove' other people's work so easily.

It would have been easy to add the citations but I was given no time to do so before whole paragraphs were removed.

It is a bit rich removing them from my Sandbox where I had stored it as a template for improvement and for doing more articles. I will certainly not use my Sandbox for storing information in the future. I thought it was more or less personal and I am surprised to discover that material can be completely obliterated from it. I have neither the time nor inclination to recreate what is now completely lost. This is a discouragement to anyone beginning a new article. The cavalier removal of someone's work is not conducive to encouragement. It means that in future I will begin small, with a sentence or two, instead of trying to be comprehensive.

The 'correction' from Free Church of Scotland to Free Church of Scotland is no correction; the original citation was deliberate, to demonstrate the different stages of the Free Church of Scotland.

In the meanwhile I have added citations to what remains of Primefac's hatchet job.

Now I might find time to read through all the links you have kindly supplied me. Is it possible to recover what has been obliterated? Ergateesuk (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ergsteesuk. Hope you are doing well. Unfortunately the work that was removed was either directly copied and pasted or it was so close a paraphrase as to constitute an obvious copyright violation. Simply citing the source is not enough: you need to summarize the content in your own words. When you post something on Wikipedia, before you save you certify that it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL (see the disclaimer above the the save button). This is true for all pages, including your sandbox The content you added does not note its license status, so under the current copyright law and Wikipedia policy, it is assumed copyright. I'll ping Primefac so he is aware of this reply and can comment as well if he likes.

I'm not sure about the correction you are referring to, other than assessing for copyright, I only made minor formatting changes, and if I did something else unintentionally, feel free to revert it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TonyBallioni, Is there some way that I can at least look at what was deleted so that I can rework and cite it properly? I had a whole section on his Academic career corresponding to the current Ministerial career, and references to Inverness which were certainly not breaches of copyright, but it has been removed wholesale. Ergateesuk (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 Now I might find time to read through all the links you have kindly supplied me. Is it possible to recover what has been obliterated?  [[User:Ergateesuk|Ergateesuk]] ([[User talk:Ergateesuk#top|talk]]) 20:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 :Hi, Ergsteesuk. Hope you are doing well. Unfortunately the work that was removed was either directly copied and pasted or it was so close a paraphrase as to constitute an obvious copyright violation. Simply citing the source is not enough: you need to summarize the content in your own words. When you post something on Wikipedia, before you save you certify that it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL (see the disclaimer above the the save button). This is true for all pages, including your sandbox The content you added does not note its license status, so under the current copyright law and Wikipedia policy, it is assumed copyright. I'll ping {{u|Primefac}} so he is aware of this reply and can comment as well if he likes.{{pb}}I'm not sure about the correction you are referring to, other than assessing for copyright, I only made minor formatting changes, and if I did something else unintentionally, feel free to revert it. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
+::Hi {{u|TonyBallioni}}, Is there some way that I can at least look at what was deleted so that I can rework and cite it properly?  I had a whole section on his Academic career corresponding to the current Ministerial career, and references to Inverness which were certainly not breaches of copyright, but it has been removed wholesale.  [[User:Ergateesuk|Ergateesuk]] ([[User talk:Ergateesuk#top|talk]]) 21:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)