|
Thank you for your edit on Imran Khan. The problem was that a vandal uploaded the vulgar image as the latest version of a Commons file. I have reported the problem at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. If an administrator has removed the section at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Wasana boro, it will mean that the administrator has addressed the problem. Peaceray ( talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Izzy Moony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Sasebo slashing, 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. Thank you.
Izzy Moony
Hi new friend!
23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mcorrolo,
Our Lady of Fatima is on my watch list, and this edit showed up with an edit summary "reverting" vandalism. The edits reverted rather clearly are not vandalism as defined on Wikipedia, but appear to be a good faith content dispute. I know editors reverting edits can be frustrating, but mislabeling such edits is not helpful to other neutral editors trying to understand the dispute, and doesn't not help built consensus. It instead leads to more conflict and anger. In the extreme, mislabeling edit summaries can be itself be considered disruptive, and may lead to loss of editing privileges. I'd recommend looking into WP:Dispute resolution to work through whatever is going on in the article. – Zfish118⋉ talk 11:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
~~~~
Mcorrlo (
talk)
10:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Our Lady of Fátima. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Portuguese Inquisition you included material copied/translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
~~~~
Mcorrlo (
talk)
10:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith of your fellow editors, and do not attack them. Personal attacks in edit summaries, such as the one you made here, are especially frowned on. Bishonen | tålk 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC).
Your edit to
Portuguese Inquisition 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. —
Diannaa (
talk)
15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Austronesier. I noticed that you recently
removed content from
Indonesia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. You can't get consensus for "your" addition, so you just blank out some other text in return?
Austronesier (
talk)
07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read Help:Translation and do what you can do fix it.This is the same as moving text from one article to another without attribution, which is also a breach of copyright. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inquisition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guillaume Arnaud. 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) 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mcorrlo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Islamophobia that may not have been. "
Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
19:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Islamophobia, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
19:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
[1] Doug Weller talk 09:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you reinstated one of the quotes I removed from that page. The reason I removed it was to negate the need for the hatnote (which I also removed). The quote you reinstated essentially says there is something to fear about Islam, and I think they crosses the threshold for impartiality. I don’t want to see anyone reinstate the hatnote, so I’m writing to ask if you’d reconsider your edit. Cheers, Obscurasky ( talk) 21:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Eg changing the word religious to doctrine does not meet WP:MINOREDIT. I am also asking you to show where the source says doctrine. Note that if you do not provide this I will at least page block you. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Please again, show me where the sources use the term. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm going to need to remove the source you added to Brian Dunning, but I wanted to explain why. While I have a lot of time for Rebecca Watson, the article is self-published as a blog post. That creates a problem, because under the Biographies of Living People policy it is very clear that we cannot use self-published sources when writing about living people, unless they are used to express the view of the author (and ideally only when the author is also the subject of the article). While that can be limiting, there are enough mistakes in blogs to make it a good rule - there are still mistakes made even in articles where there is an independent editor, but the risk when there isn't one is much higher. In this case though, we don't really need Watson, as we already have Ars Technica as a source, and that meets the policy requirements. Thus the Watson article isn't needed as a reference. - Bilby ( talk) 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your edit on Imran Khan. The problem was that a vandal uploaded the vulgar image as the latest version of a Commons file. I have reported the problem at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. If an administrator has removed the section at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Wasana boro, it will mean that the administrator has addressed the problem. Peaceray ( talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Izzy Moony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Sasebo slashing, 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. Thank you.
Izzy Moony
Hi new friend!
23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mcorrolo,
Our Lady of Fatima is on my watch list, and this edit showed up with an edit summary "reverting" vandalism. The edits reverted rather clearly are not vandalism as defined on Wikipedia, but appear to be a good faith content dispute. I know editors reverting edits can be frustrating, but mislabeling such edits is not helpful to other neutral editors trying to understand the dispute, and doesn't not help built consensus. It instead leads to more conflict and anger. In the extreme, mislabeling edit summaries can be itself be considered disruptive, and may lead to loss of editing privileges. I'd recommend looking into WP:Dispute resolution to work through whatever is going on in the article. – Zfish118⋉ talk 11:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
~~~~
Mcorrlo (
talk)
10:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Our Lady of Fátima. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Portuguese Inquisition you included material copied/translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
~~~~
Mcorrlo (
talk)
10:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith of your fellow editors, and do not attack them. Personal attacks in edit summaries, such as the one you made here, are especially frowned on. Bishonen | tålk 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC).
Your edit to
Portuguese Inquisition 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. —
Diannaa (
talk)
15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Austronesier. I noticed that you recently
removed content from
Indonesia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. You can't get consensus for "your" addition, so you just blank out some other text in return?
Austronesier (
talk)
07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read Help:Translation and do what you can do fix it.This is the same as moving text from one article to another without attribution, which is also a breach of copyright. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inquisition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guillaume Arnaud. 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) 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mcorrlo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Islamophobia that may not have been. "
Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
19:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Islamophobia, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk
19:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
[1] Doug Weller talk 09:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you reinstated one of the quotes I removed from that page. The reason I removed it was to negate the need for the hatnote (which I also removed). The quote you reinstated essentially says there is something to fear about Islam, and I think they crosses the threshold for impartiality. I don’t want to see anyone reinstate the hatnote, so I’m writing to ask if you’d reconsider your edit. Cheers, Obscurasky ( talk) 21:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Eg changing the word religious to doctrine does not meet WP:MINOREDIT. I am also asking you to show where the source says doctrine. Note that if you do not provide this I will at least page block you. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Please again, show me where the sources use the term. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm going to need to remove the source you added to Brian Dunning, but I wanted to explain why. While I have a lot of time for Rebecca Watson, the article is self-published as a blog post. That creates a problem, because under the Biographies of Living People policy it is very clear that we cannot use self-published sources when writing about living people, unless they are used to express the view of the author (and ideally only when the author is also the subject of the article). While that can be limiting, there are enough mistakes in blogs to make it a good rule - there are still mistakes made even in articles where there is an independent editor, but the risk when there isn't one is much higher. In this case though, we don't really need Watson, as we already have Ars Technica as a source, and that meets the policy requirements. Thus the Watson article isn't needed as a reference. - Bilby ( talk) 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)