User talk:Mandy221

Welcome!

Hello, Mandy221, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Domestic terrorism does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been removing incidents that have articles and adding material that is unsourced & where the Chinese articles do not call it domestic terrorism

Please stop. See WP:VERIFY. Create articles for these by all means. But the Chinese Wikipedia articles don't call them domestic terrorism. It isn't clear why you removed the ones you did as you didn't explain. I'm removing one. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the above seriously and respond

I don't want to see you blocked, and I won't block you myself, but this needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is sorted now

Even before Mandy posted to my talk page (or at least I saw it) explaining why she'd removed two incidents I'd checked them and removed them, it was ridiculous to put them there as they clearly weren't domestic terrorism. She's creating two new articles and I hope she'll have some sources if she wants to call them domestic terrorism, as the zh.Wiki article didn't call them that. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @Yamla: meant to notify Yamla. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, we never add drafts to articles, and you've made it appear to be a real article

And " stating that the extremists' actions have taken a big step towards terrorism' means that you can't call it terrorism. I think you could be a good editor but you are making quite a few mistakes. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am new to wikipedia.. so that means I can only add the "Lo Wu bombing" to "domestic terrorism" after it has been approved by your team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 05:45, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If and when it is approved as a article, and if it is confirmed to be domestic terrorism it may be added to Domestic terrorism. I have removed it in the meantime. Meters (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not part of the "team", but we do have a group of editors who look at drafts, make suggestions if necessary, and then move drafts to article space. And you really should use the domestic terrorism talk page before you add it to the page, discussing why you think it's appropriate. I've got to go out and walk the dogs now, but you can see all you need to know about the process at WP:AfC. Basically you just add a tag when you think it's ready. Ah, did you translate anything from zh.wiki and add it to the draft? Because if you did, I'll have to tell you how to acknowledge that, as anything copied between articles is a copyright violation unless acknowledged. Doug Weller talk 05:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.. none of them were copied from zh.wiki.. mandy221 talk

Good. There's often a problem with translations because our guidelines and policies aren't always the same and a lot of material from other wikipedias is unsourced. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mandy221, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:2020 Lo Wu Station bombing 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) 14:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Lo Wu Station bombing has been accepted

2020 Lo Wu Station bombing, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:1987 Cityplaza bombing

Hello, Mandy221. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1987 Cityplaza bombing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]