61.68.141.56

Copyright violations

Hi, I thought I would answer here to your edit summary on New South Wales Police Force. Copying material from other websites is indeed a copyright violation, see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. If you want to add content, you may do so in your own words. Broc (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll try fixing it 61.68.141.56 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what I mean with "POV push" is you removing a whole section of well sourced controversies. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Broc (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure but just feels like it’d be better suited for its own page. NSWP has probably a library’s worth of controversies that happen frequently, cherrypicking a few and to put it on here looks odd 61.68.141.56 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add it to a separate page you can do so by performing a WP:SPLIT. Given the section is relatively small, I do not see the benefits of a split. Do not just delete material that is well written and sourced just because "it doesn't look tidy". Broc (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mistake, meant another article, not page. 61.68.141.56 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, copy the content to a new article first, then delete it from the main one, by performing a WP:SPLIT. The page I just linked explains step-by-step how to perform such a split. Large content removal without reason is considered disruptive behavior. Broc (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello 61.68.141.56! Your additions to John R. Edwards (general) 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, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. C F A 💬 22:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2024

Your edit to Vovinam 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Warren Gulley, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not intentionally disrupting. For Warren Gully I don’t know where it was sourced he amassed a feared reputation. For the recent Adin Ross article I am listing what went on, and didnt know Hindustan Times was a unreliable source 61.68.141.56 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I indicated in my edit summary where it was verified. For Adin Ross, you keep reinserting what is really just chatter--we're an encyclopedia, not a gossipy tabloid. The Hindustan Times, whatever it may be, should probably not be used as a source to prove that some conversation was of encyclopedic value, even if they report on it accurately. But it is very unlikely that a. they have a reporter in the US delving into it and b. they carry such international weight. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, just stop with that, and with tortured phrases like "to which he escorted him outside to the driveway where it was parked". And the Spotify playlist, seriously. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That specific phrase was from the cited news article, and what I wrote was just general summarised info from the sources. It’s not like Trump is a second rate celebrity. Videos of them listening to Music has also gone viral on the internet, which Im sure describing in 1-2 lines doesn’t hurt 61.68.141.56 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also how is general information during a interview with the former President and the Republican nominee just gossip? 61.68.141.56 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Capture of Ninh Bình, you may be blocked from editing. The source is here, https://archive.org/details/histoiredelinter00roma/page/118/mode/2up?view=theater Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Enough already. What you did on Bondi Junction stabbings is not acceptable. You can take a doubt you have to the talk page, but in this case, the overwhelming number of reliable sources make your edit summary a kind of joke. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a joke, I removed it because we don’t know what the perps actual motivations are. He just seemed to look like he was targeting women. Nothing in what I did was unacceptable. What source are you referring to? All I got was the Police Commissioner voicing her own opinion "It's obvious to me, it's obvious to detectives that seems to be an area of interest that the offender focused on women’ Webb further noted, that the offender’s ‘motivations remain unclear’.”(Source: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/significant-improvement-in-babys-condition-as-coronial-inquiry-into-bondi-attack-announced/jmk3mlqye) That and perps parents who made an assumption after the incident why he may of targeted women because to them ‘he struggled getting a girlfriend’. The guy also stabbed multiple men and a baby. He was intimidated after someone wielded him off with a bollard on the escalator and changed directions after some father raised his fists at him. Which seems he was after people in general who looked like they pose no threat to himself. Also this info of him targeting women is already listed as a probable cause under the ‘Investigation’ section. Do more research beyond skimming a few damn lines and remove my improper unblock 61.68.141.56 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that indicate what his motive likely was. No, didn't just "seem" to look like he was targeting women. We follow reliable sources: there were plenty. And again, you could've taken any of your issues to the talk page; you chose not to. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

---