User talk:Jdontfight
GuruDevtint.jpg[edit]
Hello, This file cannot be used in other WP pages because of unknowned possible restrictions of licence. I wrote to premanandpaul@yahoo.co.uk (paul Masson) to know if he has the informations needed as it is mentionned if this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GuruDevtint.jpg If you have more informations that may autorize other country to use it, may be helpfull Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdontfight (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I don't know what license restrictions you're talking about, but if there are any it'd be great to clear them up. Please keep me informed. Will Beback talk 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote to Paul Masson, and he answerd me : "According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V) in the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organisations,enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain)"
- I believe the photo you refer to was taken at the mahayagna at Bombay in 1946." (this one)
- May you make the changes on Wiki Commons in order for us to use it ?
- I'm still not sure I understand the issue. I've copied the text from Mason to the image's pages, which is actually here instead of Wikicommons. File:GuruDevtint.jpg If you like, you can edit that page yourself and make any constructive edits as you see fit. Thanks again for seeing to this matter. Will Beback talk 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Carrey's honorary doctorate[edit]
Hi Jdontfight. Note that Carrey's honorary doctorate was already in the article. Now it's there twice. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Katy Perry[edit]
When the editor removed your addition to the Katy Perry article, he retained a sentence about her appearance at the Carnegie Hall benefit. Now that you've restored your information, the Carnegie Hall benefit is in the article twice. TimidGuy (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're right I didn't see that, Thanks. But it seems important to keep the quote that shows her involvment .. ?
Jdontfight (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame? Being so aggressive, so less place for constructive discussion, so authoritative... what a shame. When one wants to improve an article actually based on false references that doesn't talk of the page's subject - and even on lies (when a reference is falsely used). So it's false, you know it and you stick on that. There are rules here, why not being capable of objectivity? It's scientific, it's easy. Read carefully the articles you use on his page, and not use false references. It's a shame for wikipedia itself to let that happen, what a pity. Jdontfight (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright[edit]
Hello Jdontfight, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to John Hagelin has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or 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 a cited source. 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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Verifiable credentials?[edit]
Regarding the link you added to Electromagnetic radiation and health
The author has several claims about his credentials, but I couldn't find any independent verification. Other people also failed to verify his credentials.
Since 2001 [1], he has been telling the UK police that TETRA kills. However, they are still using TETRA as of 2015[2]. I don't see any publication that echoes his claims, or any independent verification.
He doesn't seem to be published in any scientific journal, or cited by any research paper. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
trying to re-open TM®[edit]
I think that we have some discussion opportunities at the DRN, and I tried to re-open, and have also requested assistance. Just letting you know, nothing personal, but I am trying to help and I'm not quite sure how to proceed?TeeVeeed (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know either, the DRN has ended... And it advises to go to Requests_for_comment. Why not? Best regards Jdontfight (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)