Hi Gramarian29! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello Gramarian29! Your additions to Murray Waas 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Please also take a look at WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCCEG; direct quotes from non-free sources should be should be brief, and extensive quotation from copyrighted sources is generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much! I and others in the community will make the necessary changes over the next few days. If a violation continues even after it is changed, do we bring that to the attention of the full community, including you? I will send this out to others who edit this page to bring it into compliance as well. Gramarian29 ( talk) 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi again. Two questions if I may:

1) How MANY words total can you quote from a published source if the quote is fully within quote marks, and also footnoted?

2) If there is a quote of something a member said at say, a congressional hearing, or a phrase they are famous for, that is not the subject of copyright?

3) There does not appear to be any instances of plagiarism, but how can one be certain?

4) And can the article than be posted? when those things are resolved? Gramarian29 ( talk) 22:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The citations and end notes all seem mostly in order. There is no plagiarism.

The issue appears to be one of fair use. The amount allowed is this:

'You can use up to 10%, but no more than 1000 words, of essays, articles, or stories, of a single copyrighted work." Is this not correct? What would be the correct number if that isn't? Thank you! Gramarian29 ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's restrictions on the use of non-free content are stricter than the requirements that generally apply for U.S. law. There are a number of reasons for this (including that many English-speaking Commonwealth countries don't have permissive fair use laws), but at the end of the day it comes down to Wikipedia being able to be shared worldwide. This is why WP:NFCCEG states that extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited rather than extensive quotation of a copyrighted text is prohibited; the goal of Wikipedia is to produce free content.

The state of the article before the template was placed contained a very high percentage of the total article as direct quotation (particularly in the "Professional career" section), even though we're not taking more than 1000 words from any particular source (although we use 171 words of direct quote from a 665-word NYT piece, which is probably a violation of the NYT's copyright as it's over 25% of the piece). Rather than directly quoting news reporting that can be easily paraphrased, our policies and guidelines command that we paraphrase that text. This is something that DanCherek has brought up in his edit summaries on this page before, and it's something that one should keep in mind. Rather than replacing paraphrasing with longer quotes when editing, please try to summarize what the source is saying in your own voice.

Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, this is very useful. Can you at various times take a look and see if I am making progress?

Also, I am one of about a dozen or more people or even twice that who contribute to that article. If someone reinserts something, do I share that with you and the subject page to draw in you and the fest of the community to make sure it stays fixed? Thank again! Gramarian29 ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! Yes, I will continue to watch the page. If someone re-inserts lengthy quotations in place of existing paraphrasing, please open up a discussion on the article's talk page to let them know why they should not be doing that. I will be able to see whenever a discussion is opened, so there's no need to specifically alert me if/when you open one of those discussions up. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your help and patience. Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I understand not to quote newspaper, magazine, or online articles at length. But if an article contains a quote from say a Congressman or Senator, is that prohibited or can the be used? Or say to quote a federal law? I guess this would be like secondary source material. Here is an example. Would this be ok or strongly prohibited?

Also in 1992, Waas disclosed in an investigative story in The Los Angeles Times that the George H. W. Bush administration had allowed Pakistan "to buy American-made arms" from U.S. commercial firms, despite a federal law that prohibited such sales unless the President were to certify to Congress that "Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device." (At the time, Pakistan maintained a nuclear arsenal.). The March, 1992 story led to several powerful members of Congress to assert that Bush administration was violating federal law by allowing for the arms sales. The late Senator John Glenn, Democrat of Ohio, told Waas: "They knew what the intent of the law was. The legislative history was clear." The arms ban "was signed by the President and into law. And then his [own] Administration took steps not to comply with it." Then-Senator Claiborne Pell, Republican of Rhode Island, chairman of the Senate Foreign Services Committee, said that the Bush State Department "has knowingly violated federal law by permitting" the "sales of arms to Pakistan."

Thanks again. I feel a bit dumb/embarrassed because in academia and other pursuits, quoting the original source is considered a good thing. Until you pointed it out to be, I did not understand Wikipedia was the opposite. Gramarian29 ( talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Part of the style difference is that Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source as an encyclopedia, rather than a secondary source like most academic writing. We generally seek to summarize secondary sources rather than to synthesize from primary sources. There isn't a hard length requirement, but generally unless the particular text is referred to as important by secondary sources, we don't tend to give weight to that particular quote in articles.

Statements made by congresspeople in their capacity as congresspeople are in the public domain in the United States (as is the work of all U.S. government employees in their capacity as a govt. employee), so there isn't exactly anything copyright-wise that restricts their use. Federal laws are likewise not copyrighted, as they are edicts of government; see this page on Wikimedia Commons for more information on the copyright status of government works in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

One additional question: Is this quotation-- about twelve words total-- acceptable by Wikipedia standards?

On the eve of the historic health reform vote in Congress, on March 17, 2010, Reuters published a story, based on a months long investigation by Waas, detailing how one of the nation's largest insurance companies, Assurant, had a policy of targeting all policyholders recently diagnosed with HIV for cancelation. The story asserted that the company utilized an algorithm which then "searched for any pretext to revoke their policy" on "the flimsiest of evidence." ^[1]

Or should that be rewritten in my own voice? Is a sentence or even part of one too much? Thanks again. Gramarian29 ( talk) 10:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Per the above, there's no hard length limit. In general, paraphrasing is good, but if the particular phrasing is contextually important then quoting small amounts is perfectly fine. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your time and your patience. The above was very useful, and you confirmed what I believe and was doing the last couple of days, so very happy to learn that. I've been working on the first half of the article, and know I have much approved it, but still have much to do, so any input would be greatly appreciated. When using direct quotes, I attempted to only use particular phrasing if it was contextually important, contained a distinctive phrase, or did both at once. I tried to keep such quotes to be only a portion of one sentence. I presume if I still went too far, another contributor or editor will jump in.

I also wrote ond edited the Bob Woodward article and might have made some of the same mistakes, although because so many people contributed to and edit that page, probably far fewer of my lapses stayed so long in the article. When done this, I will work on that too, and invite you to oversee any necessary fixes I do for that article as well. Gramarian29 ( talk) 19:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm about half way through the first half and should be done with that soon. Somewhere, I saw that there is less than a week to finish or they delete the whole article. I have long work days all week and someone to look after. Is there any way to get a few more days? Thanks again.

The picture of the Red-Tailed Hawk on your page is incredible. Have you ever seen a prothonotary wobbler, and do you know the historical importance of that bird?!!! Gramarian29 ( talk) 07:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! I've dropped a note over at WP:CP to not presumptively delete the article after seven days, so you should have some time to fix this so long as you keep working on it every so often. Again, thank you so much for the time that you are putting in to improving the page.

And thank you for the compliment on the photo on my page! All credit for that image has to go to Rhododendrites, who's a significantly more competent photographer than I will ever be. I'm unfortunately not able to distinguish a Prothonotary warbler from a American goldfinch in the wild due to my eyesight, but the warbler is quite a pretty bird! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've seen a few prothonotary warblers (and even learned to pronounce it!), but haven't succeeded at taking a good photo of one (best is probably this). I know the story about Alger Hiss -- is that what you mean? Oh, and yeah, I regularly get made fun of at home for getting excited about "another little yellow bird" during migration (there are probably a dozen that qualify)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Not a problem! I've been busy with a few other wiki-related tasks, but I can take a look over the next few days. Based off of your description, you seem to be on the right path, and I'm deeply thankful for your good-faith approach to fixing this! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks again!!! Gramarian29 ( talk) 01:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think I have or hope I have successfully fixed the first half of the article, all the way up to (but not including) the section of assessments of Waas' journalism. I was hoping you could look and see if the article, up to that point, is now within standards?! I did use some exact quotes, but those were ones quoting Waas, members of Congress, official documents and the such, so hopefully what I wrote was ok.

Do I still have some time to finish my work without the article being deleted? I was thinking of posting a note on the pages of other former contributors to the article to jump in and join in?

So a question: A prothonotary warbler was central to the Alger Hiss/Whitaker Chambers controversy. Was there a goldfinch that was part of that controversy as well. I sorta remember that there was a controversy about whether Hiss had seen a warbler or a goldfinch, and thought you were making a joke or comment about that. But I couldn't find anything when I googled. Irrespective of the politics, the prothonotary warbler and goldfinch probably wish to be remembered for their beauty and not some political controversy they would rather not have been involved with. I am glad that they avoided testifying in the case! Gramarian29 ( talk) 03:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I think I am ninety percent done! You want to take a look? Gramarian29 ( talk) 21:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply