December 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Gyrofrog. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit also partially incorporates a WP:COPYVIO from previous versions of this article. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to The Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. That's not how the {{Further}} template works, nor what it is for. That other article includes information common to both groups. See also User:FayssalF/JK regarding very long-standing disputes regarding this subject matter. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to The Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar 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. You've simply pasted in the text from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.4750978.0003.217. You can't just copy and paste text from another source (even if you cite it), that's a WP:COPYVIO. Even if we were allowed to use the text, the tone of the verbiage isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I am new to this so I was confused about the citations. I will replace the citations with my own wording as you requested, but if you keep deleting my contribution I will seek legal advice. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since you're new here, I will very strongly advise you to read WP:LEGALTHREAT, before you find yourself blocked from further editing. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I read the article and reposted the update as per your previous requests: I inserted the citations and rephrased the text using my own wording. I hope my posting is compliant now. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since you're new here, I will very strongly advise you to read WP:LEGALTHREAT, before you find yourself blocked from further editing. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar. You have deleted much sourced information and replaced it with entirely unreferenced paragraphs. These are also written in an unencyclopedic tone and often verge on promotional language. Arcendeight (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with your comments above and I will seek for the opinion of an unbiased board. I absolutely refuse your accusation of vandalizing Wikipedia. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- You've closely paraphrased that source, which itself is intended to promote a work, and you're thereby conveying that same tone here. I've tried to assume good faith here, but this article has a very long history where most of the editors involved with it have been heavily and/or personally invested in maintaining a specific version of the verbiage. Of course, very few (if any) people edit Wikipedia out of disinterest, but it's evident that you have strong feelings about (or, perhaps, some sort of association with) this topic, which leads me to ask that you also review WP:COI. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is very odd that you are saying these things about this article, because from the way you keep complaining each single time I try to make an edit I would assume the same thing about you. I would think that the Wikipedia editors would be unbiased and objective, but I clearly see that it does not seem to be the case. It also seems that you have strong feelings against MMOJ. The way the article on MMOJ is presented now on wikipedia is clearly biased, but evidently you prefer to keep it that way. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- You've closely paraphrased that source, which itself is intended to promote a work, and you're thereby conveying that same tone here. I've tried to assume good faith here, but this article has a very long history where most of the editors involved with it have been heavily and/or personally invested in maintaining a specific version of the verbiage. Of course, very few (if any) people edit Wikipedia out of disinterest, but it's evident that you have strong feelings about (or, perhaps, some sort of association with) this topic, which leads me to ask that you also review WP:COI. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have any feelings (strong nor otherwise) against the group, and I also don't have any affiliation with them, nor with the "Joujouka" group. Again, this topic area has a long history of people who are involved with either group (in some cases, very closely involved), editing the articles to make one group or the other look better (or worse). I'm not really seeing the problem with bias in this version – it does mention a protest against the group, although that's also sourced. Maybe it's because I've seen much worse here in the past. But I can tell you that using descriptors such as "legendary" (as you did in your last edit) is definitely non-neutral, and doesn't help to get this article to where you say you want it to be (by the same token, you'd rightfully object if someone put "the mediocre group" in the text). As for defending my preferred version of the article, this isn't even it -- FWIW I was happier with this edit, but this is a wiki, after all, and someone else didn't like it so too bad for me. As for me or @Arcendeight complaining every time you make an edit, well, Wikipedia policies (for example WP:COPYVIO, WP:V, WP:PROMO) are non-negotiable – I'm not sure what else to say except don't run afoul of them, and people won't complain about running afoul of them. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @151.81.61.50, I want to to second @Gyrofrog's message above. I encourage you to review the pages they have linked as well as WP:NPOV, which outlines the requirement of neutrality and which your edits have not conformed to. I want to emphasize that I have no issue with you, or anyone editing this article; I think Wikipedia is a much richer place when more people contribute. Those contributions must, however, follow our community-established principles and policies to ensure the encyclopedia remains a useful and reliable tool for all. Arcendeight (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I will make the required edits for the fourth time and avoid any adjectives such as legendary, but the articles as they are presented now on Wikipedia are clearly biased towards the Joujouka group, even beginners like me can see it as the history is cut completely on the Jajouka article, most of the History part concentrates on the protest, while the history mentioned in the Joujouka article actually pertains to the Jajouka group at the time of the previous leader. Leaving both articles as they are clearly does not do any favour to the general public who would not be reading the true version of how things happened. No unbiased editor would want to keep the versions as they currently are. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are, of course, free to do so. I would encourage you, however, to review Wikipedia:NPOV prior to doing so. Please also make sure you are citing to reliable sources and not adding or closely paraphrasing copyrighted information. If you do so, as you have done previously, you edits will inevitably be reverted by myself or some other editor and you may be blocked from further editing given the multiple warnings you have received. Arcendeight (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- All reliable sources are linked to copyrighted information (book, articles, etc.). So I will edit the wording to avoid paraphrasing, but it is impossible to cite without any reference to copyrighted material.... I also noticed that there incorrect information in the Joujouka version is still there, I am wondering why this version is left alone? For instance, the Brian Jones album in the discography was not issued by the Master Musicians of Joujouka but by the Master Musicians of Jajouka at the time of the previous leader, before the factions split. Event though the album was published with the spelling Joujouka, it is misleading to put it in the Joujouka discography. But this information is kept published.... 151.81.61.50 (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Citing to copyrighted information is perfectly acceptable; you must, however, put it in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. Light paraphrasing is insufficient and is a violation of that copyright.
- I encourage you to fix incorrect information you find on Wikipedia. In doing so however, you must cite to reliable sources to justify the change. Arcendeight (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- All reliable sources are linked to copyrighted information (book, articles, etc.). So I will edit the wording to avoid paraphrasing, but it is impossible to cite without any reference to copyrighted material.... I also noticed that there incorrect information in the Joujouka version is still there, I am wondering why this version is left alone? For instance, the Brian Jones album in the discography was not issued by the Master Musicians of Joujouka but by the Master Musicians of Jajouka at the time of the previous leader, before the factions split. Event though the album was published with the spelling Joujouka, it is misleading to put it in the Joujouka discography. But this information is kept published.... 151.81.61.50 (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are, of course, free to do so. I would encourage you, however, to review Wikipedia:NPOV prior to doing so. Please also make sure you are citing to reliable sources and not adding or closely paraphrasing copyrighted information. If you do so, as you have done previously, you edits will inevitably be reverted by myself or some other editor and you may be blocked from further editing given the multiple warnings you have received. Arcendeight (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I will make the required edits for the fourth time and avoid any adjectives such as legendary, but the articles as they are presented now on Wikipedia are clearly biased towards the Joujouka group, even beginners like me can see it as the history is cut completely on the Jajouka article, most of the History part concentrates on the protest, while the history mentioned in the Joujouka article actually pertains to the Jajouka group at the time of the previous leader. Leaving both articles as they are clearly does not do any favour to the general public who would not be reading the true version of how things happened. No unbiased editor would want to keep the versions as they currently are. 151.81.61.50 (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @151.81.61.50, I want to to second @Gyrofrog's message above. I encourage you to review the pages they have linked as well as WP:NPOV, which outlines the requirement of neutrality and which your edits have not conformed to. I want to emphasize that I have no issue with you, or anyone editing this article; I think Wikipedia is a much richer place when more people contribute. Those contributions must, however, follow our community-established principles and policies to ensure the encyclopedia remains a useful and reliable tool for all. Arcendeight (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have any feelings (strong nor otherwise) against the group, and I also don't have any affiliation with them, nor with the "Joujouka" group. Again, this topic area has a long history of people who are involved with either group (in some cases, very closely involved), editing the articles to make one group or the other look better (or worse). I'm not really seeing the problem with bias in this version – it does mention a protest against the group, although that's also sourced. Maybe it's because I've seen much worse here in the past. But I can tell you that using descriptors such as "legendary" (as you did in your last edit) is definitely non-neutral, and doesn't help to get this article to where you say you want it to be (by the same token, you'd rightfully object if someone put "the mediocre group" in the text). As for defending my preferred version of the article, this isn't even it -- FWIW I was happier with this edit, but this is a wiki, after all, and someone else didn't like it so too bad for me. As for me or @Arcendeight complaining every time you make an edit, well, Wikipedia policies (for example WP:COPYVIO, WP:V, WP:PROMO) are non-negotiable – I'm not sure what else to say except don't run afoul of them, and people won't complain about running afoul of them. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |