User talk:Bohemian Gal/Archive 1

December 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Church of the Creator. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no war. Simply an unjustified deletion and refusal to honor the one simple request that I've made about the incorrect redirect.

Are there any consequences for "editors" who delete articles incorrectly?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Bohemian Gal, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Church of the Creator 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 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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * 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 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've contacted the Church leaders (no, I'm NOT a member or otherwise affiliated with the church) for copyright permission. I guess it's better, though, to keep an unwarranted link to a white supremacist organization than to publish correct information. Got it!

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hello BG. I know that you are fustrated. I can only recommend that you read and absorb WP:ISNOT and WP:COPYVIO to gain some understanding of what is going on. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi BG. Thank you for your message on my talk. I agree with what MarnetteD is telling you. Also please discuss any changes you want to make on the article talk first instead of adding them without consensus. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done. The article wasn't deleted due to copyright, it was deleted because it wasn't deemed "significant." Only after I reinstated it did someone cry "copyright." So, whatever.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have blanked the redirect as your requested. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's because there is yet another redirect Church Of The Creator with capital "O". It's a mess. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Edit war"
For future reference, see the "purposes" section of our redirects guideline page and the "common names" part of our article titles guideline page — alternative names should have redirects, and we make article-title and redirect-title decisions based on what appears to be the most common name, i.e. when multiple topics have the same name, we try to put the most commonly searched-for topic at that title. This situation is currently like what we do with the title "Bombay" — it's currently a redirect to Mumbai, even though that city doesn't use that name anymore, and even though other cities and places still do, because we believe that people looking for "Bombay" are generally trying to get information that's contained in the "Mumbai" article. Hale's group has been well covered, much more than Marama's group, so our standards say that "Church of the Creator" (and associated capitalisation variants) should go there.

Whether or not this is your intention, you're giving the impression of doing all this just to hide the existence of the Creativity people: you're trying to get them "UNassociated with the name", it's your goal to ensure that people searching for this topic find only your article and not the other, and although you're an atheist and thus unaffiliated with this other group, you're doing this just because you see the situation as an egregious wrong. It appears that your sole goal is getting rid of the other group, especially because you're trying to ensure that they not appear in any searches. Promotional editing is not acceptable here, whether it's promoting your positive view of one subject or your negative view of another subject.

Finally, please see Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator: Marama's group was previously deemed to be unqualified for an article, so you need to demonstrate that it does indeed qualify (I can help you with this if you want). In light of the deletion discussion, any new page about Marama's group that doesn't at all demonstrate article-worthiness would be subject to quick deletion. I can give details on this process, and I can help you find relevant sources for demonstrating article worthiness, if you wish. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether they're allowed to use the name is not relevant to the article titles and redirects standards that I mentioned above. Unless you can present evidence that the "Articles for deletion" debate was wrong (and the redirects-for-discussion on the same subject), our standards say that this needs to stay where it is.  Court orders are not relevant to us, unless the court specifically makes an order to our operating nonprofit, the Wikimedia Foundation; any court-order-related correspondence must go to legal@wikimedia.org, and it will be handled through a mechanism completely different from on-wiki community discussions.  Be aware that making a legal threat yourself will generally result in an indefinite block.  Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly insisted that we change the redirect on legal grounds, whether because of trademark issues or estoppel. I understand that you're not legal-threatening us, so I'm not block-threatening you.  Rather, I'm reminding you that these issues are irrelevant to our discussion, since they don't affect community standards, and doing my best to ensure that you know not to start issuing legal threats.  Now, since you're writing in connection with the church leaders, let me give you a firm reminder to look over our conflict-of-interest standards.  In short, you need to allow someone else, unaffiliated with Marama's group, to write the article, because articles need to be written by people unconnected to their subjects.  Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the final time, let me again say: community consensus has held that Marama's group does not pass our inclusion standards, and it holds that people with ties to an organisation (e.g. writing on behalf of its leaders) should not write about that organisation. Until you are willing to participate in our community instead of declaring that it is wrong, without even taking the time to read our standards, I cannot help you.  As long as your response is simply claiming that we're wrong without working within our system, I will not waste my time with further responses.  PS to your last note: I thought you'd said that, but when writing my response, I couldn't find it, so I decided to assume that I was wrong and not bring it up.  Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A little note here to help you
Hi, Bohemian Gal. I saw you from the Teahouse. 's response on the Teahouse wasn't and will never be intentional to hurt your feelings. Do not get dejected, and you should not call yourself an "unsuccessful Wikipedia non-contributor". The road to being an editor in Wikipedia is complicated and difficult, and as an amateur editor, you will face disputes and unfriendly messages. These aren't cyberbullying, these are people who are trying to help you but ignorance failed to give in. I am not trying to say you are ignorant. Wikipedia follows guidelines and policies. We cite sources and remove unsourced materials once we see them. That's our job. We also prevent vandalism, edit and contribute, send WikiLoves and help people, but disputes are unexpected, we will never accept misdemeanour against people like you. If you don't mind, can you please tell me who is the editor you are having a dispute with? I will try (but it is not a guarantee) to talk some sense too.

I understand you are a teacher, but I do not think that teachers refrain students from using Wikipedia because of disputes and other stuff like that. (I am a student) It is mainly the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Of course, we've taken into consideration about users who provide incorrect information, so we have rules that ALL editors must (or may) follow, which will result in blocking of users, protection of articles and reverting of unconstructive edits which ensures our site would not tarnish reputation. Our article Criticism of Wikipedia might explain everything.

You have to understand policies and we have like, a thousand of policies to follow to, although I'll admit that I have not read all of them yet. I know how you feel, as I was also treated unfairly by veteran editors in Wikipedia. Your messages which includes "What a crappy site", "I sure don't FEEL welcome", "majority of the site is Unfriendly", "There's no war" and "You guys win". I don't understand why you have to make such detrimental comments which may hurt our feelings. Editors DO get a consequence if they remove materials incorrectly, but that user did not do anything wrong.

As for your edit on Church of the Creator, they reverted your edits because it does not meet the standards for verification and notability. Such companies must be widely-known, or at least known by 1 in 50 people. Wikipedia is tough to edit, I'll edit, due to all the confusing guidelines and policies to obey. When I started editing, I ran into a dispute with a fellow editor, and I was really frustrated and pissed when they removed my edits, but as I edit more articles along the way, I learn more things. I suggest that you should stop editing the sandbox, as there is a high possibility that it will be rejected. I am not trying to hurt you or make you angrier, I am trying to tell you more about Wikipedia. I know you are a new editor, and please assume good faith. The good faith thing is for veteran editors, but I guess I should show it to you now. I am not in any way trying to order you or anger you. I am just explaining everything to help you understand. If you need any help, be sure to leave a message on my talk page. You are always welcomed, and I will try my best in any help you need. I am a Teahouse Host too, and, I wish you a Happy Boxing Day!

P.S. I took quite long to write this so please read carefully.

Cheers, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What Harvard says about Wikipedia
What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

I hope that's enough of a citation.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave on someone else's talk page.