User talk:Belain1737

January 2021
Hello, I'm Ifnord. Your recent edit(s) to the page Charles Boarman appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking
Thank you for your zeal towards improving Wikipedia but some of your recent edits are adding excessive Wikilinks to articles. Please take a look at the Manual of Style article on Linking, specifically the section on Duplicate links MOS:DUPLINK. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mount Vernon
Wanted you to know that I reverted your addition of those two external links associated with The Society of the Cincinnati, since they are more associated with the man George Washington rather than the place Mount Vernon. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

COI
Hello, Belain1737. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Society of Cincinnati, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

it is not appropriate to address tags like this on the talk page of the editor who placed them, please address them on your own talk page. One benefit of this is that it makes it possible for other editors to have answered the questions. Might I ask how you have so many old and obscure books about the Society by its members if you are not connected to it in any way? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also please don’t edit the pages of your relatives as you did at Charles Boarman. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the very distant relative article edit. As I indicated then, there are many rules to learn here. The edit I made was to the given name of a classmate, not the distant relative himself, if that matters. I could not locate a definition for "family" in Wikipedia's guidance. Is there a defined degree to which someone is related that Wikipedia uses when determining whether an editor can edit a distant relative's article? If left to an editor's discretion, I would define "family" as a living, immediate family member. I do not own any society books. They are available publicly. It is simply a fascinating subject and all edits are made in good faith.Belain1737 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the general rule is if you know you’re related don’t do it. The same would go for editing about an organization you were a part of or connected to. You wouldnt have to be in a leadership position or something like that for it to be a COI issue. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Belain1737! Your additions to Society of the Cincinnati 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 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.


 * 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. 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.  All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
 * 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.
 * 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. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that there are no complex legal issues involved in this specific case. You copied material from the society's own sites as well as from some anonymous website which fails WP:RS. You didn't know our copyvio rules (although I'd think you'd realise that this might be an issue) or presumably what we consider to be a reliable source. The parts of the above that you need to consider are the introduction and the next two paragraphs. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from Doug Weller
Doug Weller talk 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know I used Wikipedia's copyright violation detector. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)