User talk:3rdtimesacharm

Copyright
Hello 3rdtimesacharm, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Shawn McKnight have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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 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 cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help: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 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 the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * 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 Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * 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 Translation. See also 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

All the information I entered is from Jay Nies who is a write in the Diocese of Jefferson City. All of it is off the Diocese of JC website. Is that allowed? Is there a wikipedia user who is savy at this that would be willing to help me? I have a photo also with permission from the photographer. I saw the old one is one from when he was a priest so I found a bishop one with permission.3rdtimesacharm (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. You can't copy/paste materials from another website. Anything creative work created today automatically attracts copyright, even if it isn't marked as copyrighted. There are exceptions to that, but not in this case. Therefore, the diocese holds copyright to the text on the website. You can't take it from there website and post it here without specific release of the material under a free license, as I commented on to you on my talk page. As to the photograph; there are many times that photographers say they are quite happy to grant permission for Wikipedia to use their photographs. The problem is we do not accept photographs under such conditions. The image must be released under a free license for use to use it. I.e., the copyright holder grants permission for the photograph to be used for any purpose, even commercial uses and derivative works. Most photographers are not willing to grant such a release. If the photographer wishes to donate the work under such terms, then the proper instructions to follow can be found at Donating copyrighted materials. I know, I know, all so complex. But, it is necessary. I hope that helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for all the help. I am going to try and give this a shot. It is always good to learn something new.:) Before you delete what I add, would you consider walking me through what I did wrong and giving me a chance to correct it?  I am watching some tutorials and rereading everything you wrote. I think I can do this.:)2600:8803:7986:2200:5443:1539:93EF:42C1 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Uploading of images
I've commented on the regarding licensing issues. More abstractly, I need to discuss with you the issue of licensing in general.

As I noted above, there is a procedure to follow in uploading the work of others that wish to license their works under an acceptable free license. I mean no disrespect, but you failed to follow those instructions. For Commons, those instructions are available here. This must be followed. Otherwise, the image will most likely be deleted for improper licensing.

Please understand; we can not allow an editor to upload an image that does not belong to them and assume their assertions about its copyright status are accurate. The copyright holder has rights to the image. We have to be able to prove that the copyright holder did in fact grant that the image can be used under an appropriate license. This means that their work can be used for any purpose, INCLUDING for-profit reasons (i.e., commercial uses) and INCLUDING allowing derivative works, and without having to get consent from the original copyright holder. We have no idea, and no way to prove, that you specifically asked the copyright holder for this sort of release. Allowing a photograph to be used on Wikipedia is not sufficient.

Consider; photographers make their money off of the photographs they make. That's how they stay in business. If a professional photographer were to just give away their photographs for free, they are giving up their income stream. Thus, such people willingly releasing their images under a free license is quite rare compared to the photographers who protect their rights. That's just one of the reasons why we must have proof of the release under a free license.

I've linked you to the appropriate instructions on how to handle this. Please, please, follow it. If you need help, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)