User talk:Sfsorrow2
Extensive copyright violation and plagiarism
[edit]I'm probably the first administrator to have cause to look at your contributions history in depth. It turns out that you've been copying and pasting other people's work into Wikipedia since 2007. Frick & Co., D. June & Co., and A.D. Baker Company were all somebody else's writing that you just stole wholesale. Wood, Taber & Morse Co. was mostly somebody else's writing. You've been copying and pasting content from the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia into various places. Your user page and user talk page were full of extensive copies and pastes of books and other things, as are the talk pages of several of your articles.
And where you haven't been outright violating copyright, you've been plagiarising old out of copyright books. I see from your talk page that you've been asked for sources several times, and at least once it turned out that you just took prose right out of a book lock, stock, and barrel. Several of your now-blanked-and-redirected articles , such as Leon "Bix" Beiderbecke and Constantinople-Baghdad Railway to pick but two, are highly suspect.
Even Nichols and Shepard wasn't your own writing, but an incorrectly attributed copy and paste of part of another Wikipedia article.
I've therefore revoked your editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Admiralty tug has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced and the article fails to justify its main premise, that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug". There was an admiralty, they had tugs, we could even write a WP:NOTDIR list article "List of tugs owned by the Admiralty". However there seems to be no evidence or justification to claim that they form a group that's distinguishable from any other tugs.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Admiralty tug for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Admiralty tug is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiralty tug until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Resolutehegg.jpg missing description details
[edit]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Nomination of Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. █ EMARSEE 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Lonsdale Tunnel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Completely unsourced, unlikely to be notable on its own.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizardman 00:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If this was the first article that you 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.
The page Steamboats in Canada has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from listed at WP:CP for over seven days, no viable rewrite proposed; presumptive deletion, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Sfsorrow2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been 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.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)