User talk:Editsandgrowth

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Editsandgrowth, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Editsandgrowth, good luck, and have fun. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of images[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content and understand that we are permitted to use copyrighted images if they meet fair-use criteria. A non-free-use justification is on the image page supporting that use. Generally we can't use images where a free-use image is possible such as for living people but character images are never available for free-use and limited use,, particularly to show appearance in a character article infobox, is supported and expected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Geraldo Perez § Fair use images

– Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were taken from different wikis under Fandom. Why is it that they're permitted but not a screenshot image? And does that mean those wiki images can be replaced with other similar renders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editsandgrowth (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)) (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots are also permitted with the proper non-free-use justification. What is generally not permitted is non-free images where it is possible to obtain a free-use image which is true for living people. Character images always have a restrictive copyright so are never released free-use (which for Wikipedia means no restrictions at all on how and where they can be used) meaning free-use images can't be found, so a very limited amount of size reduced, non-free-images are permitted under fair use. See WP:NFUR for more. What is required is a valid justification on the image page and these images are only permitted on Wikipedia (enwiki) but will not be permitted on commons as all Commons images must be free-use. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better image and a more official source such as a screenshot or a promo image, that would be OK to use to replace the existing image. Make sure any existing NFUR on the image page is also updated to reflect the new source. The copyright will likely stay the same. Promo images released as such will still have a restrictive copyright, extremely unlikely any Disney image will ever be released without some usage restrictions on them, Disney would never give up control of how their licensed, trademarked and copyrighted character images are used but fair-use can't be restricted by them even if they would like to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mickey Mouse. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what instance did I add either original research or novel synthesis to the article?

And in regards to the “catchphrase” paragraph, how is that information subject to deletion? They are merely recurring phrases taken directly from the short cartoons; it’s essential information to the character as is any catchphrase to any other fictional figure. Editsandgrowth (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you added the paragraph about catchphrases, unsupported by cite. If this kind of thing is essential information then surely there's an author you can cite. Otherwise it's not essential.

Wikipedia exists to relay to its readers what authors have written about a topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, then, would you consider an “author” when it comes to a fictional character’s catchphrase? The spoken phrases of any fictional character is derived from the works that said character has appeared in; in this case, the animated shorts, which are mentioned in that paragraph. They would not be found, or referenced, in a biographical novel or peer-reviewed article about Walt Disney. Editsandgrowth (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of question is that? An author is a person who writes about something. You need to cite an author who is writing about catchphrases. Full stop. You can't put this shit into the wiki by yourself. Wikipedia is not your personal publishing platform. The presence of policy violations in other articles is no excuse. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the author discussing Donald Duck’s catchphrase? Where is the author discussing Bugs Bunny’s “Albuquerque” line? Long-standing information on this very site directly contradict the supposed violation that you’re alleging. Give me a reason why those paragraphs can exist, but this Mickey information can’t. Do that, and I would gladly revamp the information to better suit the standard.

Also, I never used coarse language when interacting with you, so watch your mouth when interacting with others. A meager attempt at power-tripping is not a cute look and would be in violation of harassment policies. Wikipedia is not your personal publishing platform. Editsandgrowth (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mickey Mouse 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. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]