User talk:Editshmedt/Archive 1

Welcome back

Not that I think we met before your return. Anyway, if you like, you could link your old account on your userpage. Wikipedians can be nosy about stuff like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. This has been clarified.Editshmedt (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Original sin has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was "pastor websites dont count as reliable sources". Are you serious?Editshmedt (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retract this warning because it was given because of my mistake. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Elizium23, and I thank you for your humbleness.Editshmedt (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Editshmedt, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Abolitionism have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

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. 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.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
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.
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. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Diannaa (talk · contribs), the content I put into the Wiki article is from my own website. Therefore, is it not my property and am I not allowed to add it into whatever page I wish?Editshmedt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also astonished that you can't add text from your own blog. But actually, it's quite logical. If you want to re-add the text, you can follow Wikipedia:DONATETEXT, which basically says that you have to put a licence notice on the respective page of your blog. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I'll take a look at this.Editshmedt (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source webpage is now compatibly licensed with CC-0.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENTEditshmedt (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of myths about the Middle Ages has been accepted

List of myths about the Middle Ages, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zoozaz1 talk 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about the Middle Ages

Just saw your article and want to thank you for it. I had believed in discussions about angels on a needle for more than 30 years, being a teacher of both history and religion. You cured me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are a thousand and one reasons why an article like this needs to exist. I hope to expand it massively in the near future, although finding free time for a project like this is not easy.Editshmedt (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voltaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Nicaea. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing paragraphs

Hi. I'm afraid that if you are going to removed material from articles, particularly that sourced to reliable sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica, you need a better reason than "I disagree with it". Equally, you can't remove sourced content, and replace it with unsourced. If you have sources that say disagree with what the article says, perhaps you could raise them on the talk page? Sources that disagree over things can both be included, if they represent a notable dispute over facts and viewpoints. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Orbit (talk · contribs) I'm quite stunned by this 'note' on my talk page. Did you read, you know, my edit summary? "i consider this britannica article thoroughly inaccurate and at complete odds with the literature cited throughout the 'history' section of the article" - I didn't just say I think it's inaccurate, I noted the fact that it blatantly contradicts the scholarly literature cited throughout the body of the article. Other editors have restored my removal of the Britannica link and I consider this an affirmation that I was correct. EscapeOrbit, with all due respect, you should read the literature cited in the page before deciding that my removal of the Britannica link was arbitrary.Editshmedt (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were stunned. It's just that I observed that you appear to be in disagreement with another editor in regards to what the article should say, and are performing back and forth editing rather than discussion. The other editor supported their edit with a cite, and your response was "i consider this britannica article thoroughly inaccurate", which is an irrelevant argument for any Wikipedia editor to make. It's what the sources say that matters, we are all just random people on the internet. If the Britannic says it, it must have some validity and notability, even if you personally disagree.

Discussion about how it disagrees with the history section is a starting point. And there is discussion there already about how the concept, its validity and basis, is disputed. Personally, I suspect it rather hinges on how one defines "basis". But the article appears to lead with one side of the argument and discounts the other from the off. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking my words out of context. I didn't just say "i consider this britannica article thoroughly inaccurate", I said "i consider this britannica article thoroughly inaccurate and at complete odds with the literature cited throughout the 'history' section of the article". The reason why it's inaccurate can be determined by checking up on those sources. Finally, I do not agree that being in Britannica means something must have "some" validity at all. Personally, I can't know whether or not you read any of the literature in historiography, but it's very possible for complete myths and errors to be in books or articles published by the most prestigious publishers.Editshmedt (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abolitionism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:David that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:David. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussions here, here, and here that Tgeorg launched against me, all of which he failed in.Editshmedt (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]