User talk:PaleheadedBrushfinch

Welcome!

Hello, PaleheadedBrushfinch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Libertybison (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright Material on Dance of the bee

Hello PaleheadedBrushfinch, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions 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.

Sarah Jeong

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

If you violate WP:BLP or the editing restriction at the article again, you will be blocked and/or topic banned. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

k PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Tricia Rose

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Tricia Rose, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Block

I can't tell yet whether this is a disruption-only account that needs to be blocked indefinitely, or whether you're being bold but wrong-headed, so I've blocked initially for 24 hours to stop you from tagging women's articles as self-promotion. Those tags need to be reverted, preferably by you. Can you explain what you were trying to do? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin there are many articles by academics where the only references are their primary source work. Most are very obviously self promoting articles. Some of them included “accomplishments” sections like you would see on a resume, and some even link to a CV! I was not trying to target a particular group, just going through academic disciplines where I’ve seen the most salient abusers of self-promotion. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the people you tagged are well-known with their field, and others are public figures. We have a policy for prodding BLPs, WP:BLPPROD: "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form". You're welcome to propose articles for WP:AfD, but you would first have to check for sources, and you would also have to adjust your expectations. As I said, you were tagging clearly notable people.

Using a cv as a source is quite standard, by the way. Articles should not rely on such sources, but so long as there are secondary sources too, a cv is very useful. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Who are these “some people”? A faculty page or a resume is not a secondary source, regardless of how notable you perceive a person to be. An academic is not automatically notable simply for writing an essay or article. I already looked through the references and only proposed deletions for articles that relied on dubious sources to justify a page’s existence. I went through them meticulously, if a bit more speedily than what you’re used to. I am a fast reader.

I’m going to need a second administrator’s opinion on this as well. Preferably someone who isn’t on a task force with conflicts of interest here. Or blocks people for “wrongheadedness”. Whatever that means. PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)