Hello Quiet2! Your additions to Geoff Young 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. 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.
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 either 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 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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little off topic, I apologize, but I am not sure where to go about this question.
If a politician is one of two primary politicians for US Congress in 2022, who has had articles written about him with all large state papers in past elections, does that make this candidate notable?
Hi @Quiet2, it's typical to cover new politicians within context of their election/race articles. We only split out dedicated biographies when there is some overabundance of enduring coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Geoff Young doesn't appear to have that sort of in-depth coverage, if that's the one you're asking about. Also welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you'll stick around and edit other articles. You can ask questions on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse. czar05:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geoff Young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Independent. 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.)
Hi Quiet2! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, A little help please? Notability of politicians, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What is the purpose of this post? And what does it have to do with your block? (when blocked, users are really only supposed to use their talk pages to post unblock requests. (fyi/imo) - wolf06:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
