Hello Kevinrexheine, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Golden Boy (TV series) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
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 a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia: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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in 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. Episode summaries copied word-for-word from official website at CBS.Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the first clue why that didn't occur to me, and I freely admit that I should know better. Thank you for the admonition; I shouldn't make that mistake again. Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your vigilance and diligence, sir. However, the resolution to your complaint, if I read the discussion correctly, is that there is "nothing wrong with using a subscription source" (apparently, Wikipedia has a policy on this), and that this isn't a violation in and of itself. So, if you'd please be so kind as to restore what you undid, I'd greatly appreciate it.Kevinrexheine (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word "Democrat" as an adjective is a slur which MUST BE AVOIDED. The word "Democrat" is used exclusively as a noun when referring to someone who supports or is a member of the Democratic Party. "Democratic" is the word to use as an adjective. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've never viewed "Democrat" as a slur. The way I understood it, "democratic" properly refers to a process (such as "democratic elections"), while "democrat" refers to the politicians/supporters/members (as a singular noun) or to the party (as a plural noun). When did it become a slur, and who said so? Kevinrexheine (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a quick skim of the article, it seems that the term is pejorative only because some high-profile democrats and left-leaning media sources say so (but the common citizen really doesn't care). Am I missing something? Kevinrexheine (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get why the dems and their liberal allies take offense, and I'll cede that they have a point. But a slur? That assessment, in my opinion, is thin-skinned people looking for an excuse to be offended. The case can be made, legitimately I think, that the demonym Michigander is a slur, based on its pejorative coinage, but I don't know that anyone's actively doing so. In fact, it's considered largely a matter of perception, to the extent that those who take offense at being called "michiganders" are viewed as, well, thin-skinned people looking for an excuse to be offended. Because I do insist on using terms properly, I'll make an effort to get it straight going forward (at least in impartial non-opinion work), but I make no promises when I'm exhausted or overworked. ;-) Kevinrexheine (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevinrexheine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Resolved
