Contents

User talk:Pikespeak361

I don't think removing details from the Al-Qalis Church, Sanaa article without an adequate explanation qualifies as honest history.--Catlemur (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details removed were falsehoods.Pikespeak361 (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details you removed were supported by reliable sources. If you want to dispute the accuracy of a statement you can provide a reliable source that complies with WP:RS and it will be accepted. Otherwise people will treat your edits as unexplained content removal.--Catlemur (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTED. I AM CHECKING TO SEE IF THOSE ARTICLES I EDITED THAT YOU RE-EDITED ARE COMPLIANT WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. SO ANYTHING NOT CITED ON THERE WILL BE REMOVED, CATLEMUR.

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edittoRayhana bint Zayd, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTED.Pikespeak361 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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.Catlemur (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pikespeak361. I've had to revert you most lastest addition to the Buddy Holly article, as they appear to be a near direct copy of the article at the Grunge article. Due to copyright it's (nearly) never appropriate to copy other website, instead the content must be written in your own words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🤣you think you're slick huh?🤣ok, I'll play the game. That information is getting out there. So give up trying to remove it! I'll replace adverbs and adjectives so you have nothing else to use to pull it down.👍 Pikespeak361 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've taken it that way. I really don't care about whatever you're trying to add one way or another. I found the article because you introduced a referencing error, and I sought to fix it. I came back to it in case you were having any more issues I could help with, and found that you had created a copyright issue. I then only commented here as the standard Wikipedia notices can be, although informative, a bit cold.
As to the content, as long as you have reliable sources to back you up, go and add whatever you like but it does have to be written in your own words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC article is the weakest, most biased article out there.. It contains little of the information in my addition...and beside the Grunge article, the wiki source about the NTSB report regarding Peterson's record were completely obfuscated, even though there was a cite. Hard to not see an agenda.. But that's ok. It'll all be put back up with proper copyright adherence. Thanks Pikespeak361 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pikespeak361! Your additions to Buddy Holly 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.
• Ifyou 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. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you are attempting to keep this information from reputable sources off the page. I'll bite though. I'll "paraphrase" as you say, even though most of the cites on this article are not in quotes or paraphrased. Instead of adding to these articles by putting in quotation marks as you say, you just keep the information out there that you want available to the public. I'm all for proper citing procedure, but you're issue with copyright is mute as it was not verbatim. Not to mention you need to make sure ALL sources cited in this article are not verbatim or punctuated appropriately. Gotcha, though! Pikespeak361 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that Doug Weller, a highly experienced editor, knows more than you do about our copyright policies. As for "You're issue with copyright is mute" (sic), I'm not sure what you're saying, but you're very rude with it, and even ruder towards ActivelyDisinterested above. Civility is policy here, and assuming good faith, which you did not do, is an important guideline. Please click on those two links and read. If you put back your copyright violations, you will be blocked. As you will be if you speak to people here like that again. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

There was nothing uncivil about my talk and you are speaking for someone else! But thanks for the info? Keep it civil, indeed. The information attempting to be kept down will be appropriately added, as that's the fair practice. I'll assume good faith from you without veiled threats. The information re-added obfuscates the truth being told through reputable citations. Everything pulled down will be re-added with appropriate quotes and copyright respect, nonetheless. Thanks for the info. Pikespeak361 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As for 'You're issue with copyright is mute' (sic), I'm not sure what you're saying.." I was clear when I said "I'm all for proper citing procedure, but you're issue with copyright is mute as it was not verbatim. Not to mention you need to make sure ALL sources cited in this article are not verbatim or punctuated appropriately." That was a clear statement. Thanks Pikespeak361 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that should have been your issue, and moot? OK, sorry. But if you think there was nothing uncivil about "you think you're slick huh?", or that your comment "It is clear you are attempting to keep this information from reputable sources off the page" assumed good faith, you're mistaken. And you continue to assume bad faith of Doug and ActivelyDisinterested in your reply to me, with "The information attempting to be kept down". As for saying "you are speaking for someone else" to me, I don't understand what you mean. I'm an admin here. I often do speak for people who have been insulted, when I warn the insulter. That's part of what admins do. Also, could you please indent your replies with colons, as is talkpage practice here? Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

 "... kept down.." as in kept down off the wiki page. No insults were used. 

Definition of such is in the dictionary. It was a question. Inferred aggression is a problem for all, especially on a public knowledge fountain such as "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.."indeed. Where's your indent? This has certainly been educational. Pikespeak361 (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case you material about someone else belongs in that person’s article. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will be linked to the big bopper, Dr.Bass, and maybe I'll even create a wiki if there is none for Pilot Peterson... Pikespeak361 (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]