User talk:Mage67usa

Omega: The Last Days of the World

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Omega: The Last Days of the World, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.shopping.com/xPC-Omega_by_Camille_Flammarion. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Omega: The Last Days of the World

A tag has been placed on Omega: The Last Days of the World requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Lynda Myles (American)

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, I notice that you recently created a new page, Lynda Myles (American). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Lynda Myles. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Lynda Myles - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ttonyb (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Lynda Miles (American)

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, I notice that you recently created a new page, Lynda Miles (American). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Lynda Myles. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Lynda Myles - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ttonyb (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text e-mailed. Do not even think about re-posting until you have added: an hat note to make it clear that this ain't the British Lynda Miles and external links to demonstrate her notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Number 12 Looks Just Like You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Long (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mage67usa, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to That Girl have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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 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 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. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them. In other words, stop copying text from sources.
Also, you need to start communicating with other editors, or at least acknowledging what they have said. If you add something and it is removed, there's probably a good reason for why it was removed and should not be added again. You may want to complete our tutorial WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get the hang of how the site works. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Wikipedia

Hi Mage67usa. Many people come to Wikipedia and don't quite understand we do here.

What we do here, is generate content that summarizes accepted knowledge, in whatever field is relevant. We find accepted knowledge in high quality, independent, secondary sources. We use what we call "primary sources" rarely and carefully, not drawing any conclusions from them. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is a form of what we call original research and is absolutely not OK here. It against the very foundation of how this place works.

Much of your editing on religious topics, has been adding comment in which you draw conclusions from the Hebrew Bible which is a primary source. This is not OK here.

Please have a read of User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to help new editors understand the mission of Wikipedia, how the editing community realizes the mission, and why we do things as we do.

Please slow down and take some time understand how to work here. Please be aware that editing Wikipedia is a privilege that the editing community makes available to everyone -- this openness is very important to us. However, if someone will not learn how to work here, the editing community can and does remove or restrict editing privileges. So please slow down, and if and edit you make gets reverted, please ask why -- and really ask, so that you can learn how to edit well. Happy to help, if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Drawing conclusions from primary sources is a form of what we call original research and is absolutely not OK here." How about just directly quoting from a primary source without drawing a conclusion? Is that allowed? mage67usa

It depends. If you are trying to string together the content from the primary sources to make an argument, that is not OK per WP:SYN. It is very difficult to work with primary sources in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to the bible; you will have a much easier time if you use high quality secondary sources, and summarize what they say. One of the things that make it tricky to use any primary religious source (be it the bible or quran or the bhagavad gita or whatever) is that believers in the related religion often take what is in those texts as true, both for history and for content about the religion, and often bring those baked-in assumptions into their editing. Wikipedia is written from a scholarly, not a confessional perspective, and so using religious texts that way is not OK. This is why understanding the mission of Wikipedia is important. You are going to waste a lot of your own time, as well as the time of others, if you don't understand the mission and how we realize it. Please do read user:Jytdog/How. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note on using talk pages

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.

Indenting and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is

I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tgeorgescu is basically correct. This issue also applies to the recent edit at Nabal, for which you can see the talk page if you're interested. Alephb (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]