Thank you very much for writing Paul Herman Rohland. Very informative and well written. Happy editing and let me know if you get stuck with anything by leaving a message in my talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George B. Post, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorkers. 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.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Roes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969TT me00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20 years - who knew? Makes me even more impressed with editors who have years and years and thousands of edits under their belts. May I hope to achieve the same in the next 20 years! Tennis Anyone?Talk22:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello 10sne1! Your additions to Le Neubourg 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.
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. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
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 the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. 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 in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI!00:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moneytrees (love the handle!) thank you for the info. I thought I did a better job of rewording it as I for the most part pasted the content in to retain the factoids but then paraphrased it to not be a direct copy, but apparently, not well enough! I will circle back on said article later and make another attempt at applying the details and where direct copy is required to retain the integrity, to remember to quote it specifically as you mention above. thank you for the feedback, still learning - but duh - that should have been pretty obvious and on my radar without having to be told. Tennis Anyone?Talk01:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Greta Thunberg, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello Thjarkur and thank you for your feedback. I've come across this gizmo in several marketing campaigns and assumed that a device with a trademarked name would be worthy of publishing so that there is definition of it. Also assumed that the US patent/trademark office was reliable enough, I too did not find any specific new on the item, but have seen other articles with no citations that exist for similar reasons. Hence, I gave it a shot. Is there no saving it unless there is specific news coverage? Thx Tennis Anyone?Talk21:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Thjarkur I didn't think a registered ® trademark was that easy to get, but I see your point. Would you have a problem putting the page into Draft mode in my sandbox and keep it on ice a bit while I search for reliable news? I assume after time if nothing happens, then the sandbox is wiped clean at some point, which is fine. Thanks, Tennis Anyone?Talk14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you are free to move it to your userspace or to drafts. Things in your userspace are usually not deleted, but things in draftspace are deleted after six months of no activity. – Thjarkur(talk)14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Janet Marie Smith you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GhostRiver for your taking the time to review my article and give tons of great feedback regarding "good article" status. I will continue working it, making the changes you noted. I appreciate your time and effort! Tennis Anyone?Talk21:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Hello 10sne1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:10sne1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=10sne1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MarioGom (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
