User talk:2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26

Welcome!
 Hello, 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26, good luck, and have fun. —  Newslinger  talk   02:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio
I would like to know why one of my additions (as well as another paragraph of the Lori article) was removed as a copyright violation. Display name 99 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they are word-for-word copies of the text of the articles which are cited. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not true at all. Here is the CNA version:

"Archbishop Elden Curtiss, then-Archbishop of Omaha, asked why a revision to the text replaced the term “clerics” with the phrase “priests and deacons.”

'Bishops are also clerics,' Curtiss pointed out.

William Lori, then Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut, said that the drafting committee 'decided..."


 * And here is my version:

"During the meeting, Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss asked why a revision to the text concerning the Church's new zero tolerance policy on sexual abuse replaced the term 'clerics' with the phrase 'priests and deacons.' He pointed out that 'Bishops are also clerics.' Lori said that the drafting committee "decided..."


 * There are obviously differences. I suspect you will lodge a formal complaint as demanded. In that case, I don't expect it to be sustained. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a paraphrase. It uses the same words, shifted around their order a little bit, and adds some explanatory phrasing. Not to mention that "pointed out" is a POV editorialization. Just one of the many reasons we need to write articles in our own words. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Bishops are obviously clerics. Because all RS agree, there shouldn't be a problem with it. If stuff is shifted around a little bit and some explanatory phrasing is added, it isn't a "word-for-word" copy. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears you have not made formal note of the alleged infraction here as you were supposed to. If you don't do so soon, I will undo your edit and reword some of the material to hopefully take care of further objections. Display name 99 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've moved your copyright problem report to the correct date at Copyright problems/2018 September 16. In the future, please keep in mind that tagging an article with Close paraphrasing is an alternative to reporting it as a copyright violation when the content is also slightly reworded. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   02:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . In your opinion, would it be OK for me to slightly reword it myself and remove the violation, or does it have to go through the official process now that it's been reported? The content, which as far as I've looked at it seems fine, could easily have just been reworded slightly so that we wouldn't have had to go through all this. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's has an extensive guide for this situation here: Close paraphrasing. For this situation, I think you should be able to summarize the source in your own words and then remove the report and both of the copyright violation notices. (You can always rescind a report you've made by deleting it or striking through it with .) If you think the text is close enough to a copy-and-paste of the original source, you can also request a revision deletion (after rewriting the section) to make sure the infringing content is removed from the article history. —  Newslinger   talk   02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, part of the content in my last comment was wrong because I thought I was replying to User:2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26. Sorry about that. I don't think it would be appropriate to remove someone else's report from Copyright problems. However, if you're up for the challenge, you can rewrite the disputed text (as described in the copyright issue notice). An administrator will merge in the new content, and use revision deletion to scrub infringing edits from the article history if they determine that would be necessary. —  Newslinger  talk   05:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of LifeSiteNews
You may be interested in a discussion taking place at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard regarding the reliability of LifeSiteNews as a source for Wikipedia articles. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)