User talk:98.223.133.112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2012[edit]

Your addition to Timothy Costelloe has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.223.133.112) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

About edit summaries[edit]

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been signing your edit summaries with 4 tildes--you do not need to sign edit summaries, just talk pages like this one. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to reiterate this point. ~~~~ doesn't work in edit summaries and is unnecessary - you only need to use it on talk pages. — Scott talk 12:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Abacus, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ISTB351 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not use Catholic honorifics applied to names of people in articles[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that you have started editing a number of biography articles, and you are putting Catholic honorifics like "Servant of God" and "His Holiness" in front of the names of people. You need to be aware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding this. In general, Wikipedia does not use the honorifics when mentioning people. Note that even in the article Pope Benedict XVI, the article refers to him as Benedict XVI and not Pope Benedict XVI. Please read this article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). As you continue to edit articles, please adhere to Wikipedia's naming convention and do not use Catholic honorifics. The honorifics you have added so far will be edited out. Thanks.... Zad68 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to JetBlue Airways. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Your addition to Selumetinib has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

CCI Notice[edit]

Hello, 98.223.133.112. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Pope John Paul II. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Pope John Paul II, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please observe WP:HONORIFIC and do not add things like "Blessed Pope" in front of his name. Elizium23 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I thought it appropriate, since diplomatic protocol, the Church's regulations, and acceptable civil practice usually allow for honorifics to be used because they are that person's due as a sign of respect for the position they occupy or have earned, not something we can choose to give or bestow on our own accord.

I have retracted the above two warnings due to this not being a really problematic issue and your obvious good faith attempts to discuss it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your additional edit on Salvatore Cordileone.[edit]

Your additional edit on Salvatore Cordileone is wrong and mistaken. Please refer to correct source, and most preferably canon law when you make edits. I welcome change but I hope you can justify it by at least giving sourced information. QvisDevs (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Under the revised 1983 Code of Canon Law, in current practice, a cleric who is already a validly ordained Bishop and who is in charge of a certain position, automatically ceases to be the holder of that title when he is named by the Pope to another position (listen to Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke's remarks when he was serving as Archbishop of St. Louis and was named Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura). He may have to be formally installed as the Bishop of a certain see or in charge of a certain office, but he is still considered to be, and is known as, the (Arch-)Bishop-elect of the new office from the time of the acceptance of his appointment, even if he then is named to serve as Administrator of his former post at the same time. My Catholic assistant pastor told me that, and I, being a knowledgeable Catholic (a former candidate for the seminary and Cathedral altar server who took theology and philosophy courses), had thought it to be the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.112 (talkcontribs)
Please cite a source that says he ceases to hold that title when he is named, rather than when he is installed. I suggest you look on Talk:Salvatore J. Cordileone, where I have quoted the Canon Law reliable source that contradicts you. I would also suggest that you look at Talk:Charles J. Chaput where this was discussed extensively and you were a priori proven wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at Paul Shan Kuo-hsi[edit]

Hi, I removed a substantial portion of your edit to the article because it's largely copied from the report you cited. Please stop adding copyrighted content written by others to Wikipedia, thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The article asked for more citations, as if more information needed to be added. I did not commit plagiarism- I cited the source- I gave the author and the organization and the date before the script, and used quotations- I made it very plain that the additional information did not come from me and that it came from the other source. This extra information from these sources gave more details than solely biographical information. It came from a valid and reputable online source. If it were not for my additions to religious articles and to medical articles and to current event articles using those stories found online, pardon me, but Wikipedia would then be out of date and inaccurate, or incomplete, or lacking details about the person or discovery other than just routine or too-old information, which affects your credibility with scholars.

The problem isn't that you added information from another source or that the source was invalid, it's that you used the prose from the original source. Doing so constitutes copyright infringement, which we're legally required to remove.
Ideally, we want people to gather facts from reliable sources (preferably more than one--it's harder to avoid inadvertently copying the structure or the writing when you have only a single source), organise the information in their own words and add it to Wikipedia, citing the sources used. Quotations should be short in length, clearly marked (i.e. quotation marks or blockquote tags) and used only when summarising what was said would be inadequate.
It'd be great if you could do that with the information you added. I might take a stab at improving the structure of the article if I get the time / motivation later. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, by its nature, has very uneven quality, and this seems to be one of the more poorly organised and less comprehensive articles. wctaiwan (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not always possible to immediately find another reputable online source about an identical news story unless it makes headlines. Furthermore, some quotations in articles online can be shared between different reports, making unique quotations, especially short ones that adequately cover the topic, hard to find. Not everyone knows how or has adequate time to look for other sourcework or to properly summarize, especially when it comes to summarizing what is sometimes complicated and very recently released (high-value) material, such as medical or scientific information, or even certain biographical information, without using at least some of the same terminology and jargon that was used there. Furthermore, information about persons or other entities that is reported on and verified by multiple agencies and that are verifiable facts and key parts of that person's life and work or even about that discovery's essence could be considered common knowledge- if these details are quoted or stated in a report on a subject by multiple agencies, then it may or may not be enough to make them protected, even if the other work in that article might be. The 10% rule (do not use more than 10% of an article) was the traditional standard that was usually to be followed in academic environments in the United States when quoting, although many agencies will not even let you quote anything without notifying them each and every time (which is too inflexible), which makes my job exponentially harder- the cost of phone calls or the time making up e-mails or in-person visits. Perhaps I simply will do nothing at all, I can't go wrong there.

  • You only need a single reliable source for each piece of information.
  • You did not just copy the jargon / terminology—you copied entire sentences that should have been summarised in your own words. That is not acceptable.
  • There's no such thing as a "10% rule" in US copyright law, and all works are protected by copyright, regardless of the number of times they have been quoted.
  • You do not need to notify copyright owners when you're including brief quotations clearly marked as such, as doing so falls under fair use. This is not a reason to use quotations indiscriminately where summaries would be more appropriate.
Summarising information in your own words, instead of copying from sources, is not optional. I'm sorry that you feel you can't contribute without doing the latter, but Wikipedia's requirement to follow US copyright laws is non-negotiable.
Lastly, please make future messages more concise and readable. It was extremely difficult to discern what you were trying to say. wctaiwan (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I apologize. I was confusing plagiarizing and the need to cite properly and provide a link, which I have usually done, with copyright and fair use, which go beyond those minimal requirements. Brief quotations and summarizations are not the same as longer tracts, you're right. From now on, I will either summarize briefly, or use brief quotes, ideally from websites that do not prohibit you to use their articles without explicit permission. If in doubt, I will refrain from making edits out of an abundance of caution. Please feel free to remove anything that appears to be improper.

Thank you for your understanding. Happy editing. wctaiwan (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Rabies. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Perhaps more important, this person is alive today. Wikipedia has rules proscribing the inclusion of unsourced information about living persons. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Account[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contribution to various articles recently; your work is greatly appreciated by the Wikipedia community of editors. We encourage you to create an account, so you can more easily contribute and work with fellow editors. Doing so is extremely simple and free, and no personal information whatsoever is required of you. Again, thanks for your work on Wikipedia. dci | TALK 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Roscelese. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

Because you deserve some sort of award for your contributions (but I couldn't find exactly the right Barnstar) Face-smile.svg 220 of Borg 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene* Like other editors already have, I encourage you to make an account. (nb. I personally had over 12,000 edits as an IP!) But the tools you can access when registered make it much easier to edit. Note, you don't need to sign your edits in the edit summary field! 220 of Borg

Portal:Current events[edit]

January 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Prince Harry of Wales, you may be blocked from editing. Eyesnore (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What I reported was a disparaging statement made by a prominent Afghan warlord- this was widely covered in the news media in more than one reputable agency (CNN, NBC, etc.). I am not doing the defaming personally- reporting something defaming or insulting known to be said by another does not in any way whatsoever constitute another instance of defamation, bias, slander, or libel by me simply for reporting it, which is what I did. What I reported was completely accurate- properly cited and taken from a valid news agency's news article. If anything, I reported too much of the news article and made too much of the insurgent's comment.

March 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Steubenville High School, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You cannot ever name juveniles accused of crimes, and unless they are convicted as adults, they cannot even be put in if they are convicted. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I did not do anything defamatory or illegal. The newspaper and the other source I gathered the material from is a reputable source that would or should know to follow the law and proper etiquette and custom- the Peoria Journal Star and the Associated Press. While it is true under the laws of many Western countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, that juvenile suspects or even convicts are not generally named, it is well-known that the law and most mainstream media policies in the United States allow for exceptions to that otherwise-absolute rule of confidentiality (there are exceptions to most confidentiality laws) if the names of the defendants are well-known already in the media to the public and if their crime is a serious felony- which rape is, by any definition in Western law- where there is a possibility they could be transferred and tried as adults (and adult suspects may legally be named in the United States by the news media and in the courts even before they are indicted or convicted, provided that it is made clear that they have not been indicted or convicted yet, by using the word "alleged", which is the custom).

Hello, I'm Higgyrun3. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to OSF Saint Francis Medical Center because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Thanks for contributing to this article, but what you wrote was factually incorrect. OSF bought Proctor's primary care services, not the hospital. Also, this purchase is not directly related to the Methodist lawsuit, which was implied in your writing. Higgyrun3 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm A.amitkumar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Influenza A virus subtype H9N2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. A.amitkumar (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Yes, it was an accident, thanks, its only somewhat important.

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Roman Catholic Diocese of Samoa-Pago Pago has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The event is not a future event- Pope Francis has named him to the position, and, in church law, from that moment it takes effect, even if episcopal ordination and installation (the transfer of authority) must come later- and the source was the Vatican's own web site (it may be the primary source, but it is, beyond dispute, the most reliable source for information on Catholic appointments.