You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
It says in the notice you posted that I can have temporary access to the material you deleted as copyright infringement. I would appreciate having this access for a moment to simply copy to my word processor outside Wikipedia the many quotes with references at the bottom of the page. The View history page is dead, with "51 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown". (I had backed up my "QUOTES FROM GAUDETE ET EXULTATE" material at the top of the page.) I understand the problem now and will avoid using my sandbox for series of quotes. Jzsj (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this again. I'm sorry if you did not know the correct British English version before, but the note is there to educate and clarify, so now you know better than you did. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeida control rights to one's own work in Wikipedia?
Thanks for your desire to be helpful. Just one question. If the work that I am copying is entirely my own, must I state that or can I simply copy it without attribution? In other words, in creating an article or part of an article for Wikipedia do I lose the personal right to use that matter in other places, outside of Wikipedia, without attribution? Can you direct me to where this specific question is answered? Jzsj (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very good question! I am not a copyright lawyer: please do not consider this as legal advice. But according to my layman's understanding, you still retain copyright to your work. What is happening on Wikipedia is that you are agreeing to release it under their selected Creative Commons license. Now, since it is non-exclusive that means you are free to reuse your own work and relicense it to others in many different forms. In particular, the attribution requirement is a feature of CC-BY-SA and does not extend to other licenses you may choose to grant. This explanation may help your understanding. You might also want to check the section on "moral rights". My understanding of copyright and IP law is mostly limited to these USA; if you live abroad or have any concern about international considerations, that would be beyond my pay grade. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Modernism in the Catholic Church reversion
Hello. I understand that your previous reversion was not vandalism, but it provided insufficient reason as to why the link was removed, and so I reverted it. I felt the link provided more evidence and background to the page. If you have a valid reason, feel free to let me know, as I was only trying to be helpful. Thanks for your consideration! Lightningboltz03 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Lightningboltz03 5/14/18[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I hope my edit summary the second time around was more descriptive. They are two distinctive movements, and while they are interrelated, it seems wrong to place one as the child of another. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May 2018
Your recent editing history at Fifth Council of the Lateran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm 173.209.178.244. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say your edit on the page was vandalism, and the edit summary does not mark it as such. My apologies if that is what it seemed. Seymour was born and raised in England, and did not become a US citizen until well after her acting career started. Because of this, saying "English" is relevant and would seem to make more sense. However, if editors determine that her American citizenship is more relevant, that is fine. Just please reach consensus before changing something like that. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MINOR, when Rollback is used to revert vandalism, the edit is marked "minor". If you intend to revert an edit that is not vandalism, you will need to accomplish it in a way that does not use the Rollback feature or an automated anti-vandalism tool. Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to World No Tobacco Day. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Abelmoschus. 2600, you seem to attract criticism! I was following that conversation with that IP editor after the "quashing" dispute. What uncivil comment did they remove? I can't find anything. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy, dude. I follow Recent changes, and I take interest in messages left for IPv6 editors. Stalking--sheesh. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that comment seems pretty mild to me, but I'm notorious for cussing. Hey, Salus Populi Romani is fascinating. I'm tracking down the 1954 TIME article through the library to see if I can straighten out some strange language in the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is fascinating indeed. And what is also fascinating is the phenomenon which led me there: a constant, serial stream of very prolific WP:SPAs who specialize in Canonical coronation. They are highly industrious and somewhat inaccurate; sometimes I clean up after them but they mostly stay to a concentrated core of articles. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Do you have any examples? I am reminded of a prolific sock, I believe from the Philippines, who used to make unhelpful edits on lists of popes. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do all their best work at List of canonically crowned images with a 4-year history. It all started with TreasureIslandMediaBoss, who was still active as of January, but abandoned Catholic topics long ago. Most recent is SeoulKing, as you know. There are recent IPs from Canoga Park and West Hills, CA. It also seems that, together with TIMB, many enjoy an affection for beauty pageants and porn stars. Anunknownpersonxx made a short appearance. Aw58 got in on Polish action. I don't know - are they all socks, or WP:MEATs? Do we have ways to detect off-wiki coordination? I was under the impression that many of them were Filipino, but that isn't playing out as I examine them. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, we are limited in what we can do, even with special tools. I cannot find any evidence of there being alternate accounts right now, but that doesn't mean the other accounts you mentioned aren't related; they just edited too long ago. I found nothing to connect this to the Philippines, however, so that theory of mine is out the door. Anyway, if you run into these things and they begin to get disruptive, let me know. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MINREF, direct quotations require an in-line citation. We need a page number to verify the quote. All too often, editors who think they know better add content without a reference because of their arrogance and laziness. This behavior looks identical to sneaky vandals adding material without a clear reference in an effort to hide what they've done. While I appreciate you're a good faith editor, I'm asking for you to cooperate fully, rather than just dump a quote and then complain when we expect better. Chris Troutman (talk)08:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at John Henry Newman. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk)08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was unfortunate that you insisted on reverting to a version of the article that violates WP:CATV because of an unsourced category, which is what I was attempting to repair. So in reality, your reverts were causing more damage to the article than my addition. Also, I did not appreciate the goalpost-moving which @Charlesdrakew: engaged in as he objected to my successively-refined edits, again reverting them rather than simply, collaboratively, correcting them. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a situation of WP:BLP where you are compelled to remove contentious unsourced material. A simple discussion on the talk page could've requested a source from me, without a single revert, and we could've had that conversation on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McCarrick sexuality
Save the sarcastic and misplaced "warning" tags. We have a reference from The Washington Post, which quite explicitly described McCarrick taking part in a homosexual act; he "unzipped [the boy's] pants and put his hands in the boy’s pants." Can you explain to me how this does not warrant categorising McCarrick's article in Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops? We have a mainstream source, explicitly discussing him taking part in a homosexual act (fondling another man's penis), more evidence than all the other people populating that category already (with the exception of Keith O'Brien, who was involved in a similar incident). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I regard your putting a template like that on the page of an experienced user (with whom you are moreover edit warring) as harassment. Don't do it again. Bishonen | talk23:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
