User talk:Jeremy9192

Welcome!

Hello, Jeremy9192, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Khristie Bandhu, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Khristie Bandhu

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on Khristie Bandhu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gujarati Christian

If this is the first article that you have 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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gujarati Christian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green City Bible Church

Hello Jeremy9192,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Green City Bible Church for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khristie Bandhu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Khristie Bandhu. Since you had some involvement with the Khristie Bandhu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Begoon. I noticed that you added or changed content in several articles, including Gujarat, but you didn't provide reliable source(s). The changes have been removed and archived in the page histories for now, but if you'd like to include citation(s) and re-add any of the content, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Begoon 09:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gandhinagar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Begoon 09:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gandhinagar. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Begoon 09:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gandhinagar. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Begoon 12:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019 Gandhinagar, Gujarat

Hi thanks you for pointing out, I am new here, Stuff posted was not made up, but yes i was not fully aware about the citation rules and stuff, thanks for pointing out the goof up, rectified and added the sources, let me know on my page your pointers. And if possible a guideline to the effective display of true material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy9192 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the best pointer I can give you is to learn to write good English with correct grammar and in an encyclopedic style. "Pollution spitting chimneys touched the sky, smoke visible from faraway, non-residents of Ahmedabad rushing towards ‘The Big City’ everyday" might sound good to you, but it's simply not the factual style an encyclopedia needs. Take your time, read how some other articles (preferably not just Indian) are written, and try contributing some smaller chunks, maybe just a sentence or two. I'm afraid I've reverted your last addition for those reasons, sorry. -- Begoon 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jeremy9192, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Bihar 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. (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 the 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 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.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 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) 21:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Your addition to Maharashtra has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Begoon 09:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please treat this as your final warning - persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing -- Begoon 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Begoon 10:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}}. Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked, please affirm you will cease and desist from adding material copyrighted elsewhere. Please state your understanding of the policies linked by Dianna above. Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeremy9192 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked for copyrights issue, Wikipedia suggested to write in my own words, well the first few were copy pasted from the source, being unaware of the copyrights issue, but adding later stuff, it was done in my choice of presentation. First it states Wikipedia is not a place for original content, that was the only reason I copy pasted, seems like it annoyed you still. I am siting sources, and using my words now is this still not good enough?Jeremy9192 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Re "original content", you are referring to WP:original research. To clarify further, we use WP:reliable sources for information and then rewrite in our own words. Not discoveries or conclusions arrived at or derived by the editor. Not copy pastes or close paraphrase of content copyrighted elsewhere. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one other note - you were not "using your own words" in "the later stuff". You might have sprinkled a few different words here and there, or altered the order of some paragraphs, but that's not something you can do. You may have noticed some of my edit summaries when I reverted you said "obvious copy/paste" - that's because the style and grammar of what you added was quite clearly not your own style and grammar - a fact obvious from comparing your language and grammar levels with the posts you make on this page when you are using your own words - even before I checked against the source(s).

It was obvious that it was directly lifted from a professional publication. As a first, quick check, I didn't even look at the source in your reference - just a google search for a paragraph or two of what you added led me straight to it, because it was so close/identical. When I did check fully, there were huge swathes of text and whole paragraphs copied almost verbatim. As I say, if you changed a couple of words somewhere what you added was so close to the original it was hard to find changes. You have to write entirely in your own words - you can use copyrighted material for ideas and information, but you can't just copy large portions of it, even closely paraphrased, and what you added was very close to the original, identical in most places. -- Begoon 08:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jeremy9192 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What is copyright? Copyright is the intellectual property of the creator, cannot be used without the explicit permission of the creator. *How is Wikipedia licenced? Wikipedia is for free information, anything on it can be used, reused, modified and redistributed as long as proper acknowledgement is given. Wikipedia information is free like that of a free software. *Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Being an intellectual property of the creator, it cannot be used without the appropriate permission from the creator. Violation of this is a crime, obviously Wikipedia doesn't aim to cause harm to any original content creator in any way. (Neither do I.) *Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? It can be used with the permission of the creator. Though using free content seems to be a better option. *How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? My aim is to update authentic information, not imaginary ideas. Wikipedia is still not a place for editors to create their own work that cannot be substantiated, thus citing published sources is require, so what I plan to do is cite sources but not plagiarise their content, this shall require me to rewrite the content, which I can only hope is not edited out considering a work of fiction. Let me know if this makes sense?Jeremy9192 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I think you understand. welcome back Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jeremy9192 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since I cannot respond back to the user on their talk pages i am writing here. Dlohcierekim & Begoon Understood your comments about citing sources, but rewriting in my own words. In the beginning from comments it felt like that shall be considered original work, which Wikipedia does not encourage. I hope the confusion has been put to rest at least now. Point out in case I have said anything that is wrong. Jeremy9192 (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See above. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dlohcierekim for opening up the chance and an opportunity to exhibit learning curve. Much appreciated.Jeremy9192 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I couldn't help noticing in your unblock requests: you keep referring to "rewriting content". That's a dangerous mindset in many ways. You should not be trying to "rewrite" the content in a source - that is where most copyright and close-paraphrasing/plagiarism issues arise. If you are trying to "rewrite" the content, then inevitably what you write can become too close to the original.

If you can think of, and approach, the task of writing wikipedia content as "writing your own content" from scratch you will do much better. As explained above, you can use copyrighted material for ideas and information, but you shouldn't be copying either its words, its "shape" or its style - your content should be entirely your own, and the sources you cite need to support it - but your words should not be directly drawn from it. -- Begoon 08:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]