User talk:Fgillice

Welcome!
Hello, Fgillice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Tutelary (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Long replies
Could you maybe make your replies much more succinct and directly on point? It's kind of disheartening to see a great wall of text, though it could be appropriate in some cases, it's just hard to read. Tutelary (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding stuff like this, try not to remove a post after others have replied to it, unless the post should be removed; this is per Talk page guidelines, whether editing your own or others' comments. I don't think Herostratus will mind that you removed his comment, though, since you removed your entire post. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations
One of your edits at Talk:Child pornography was to copy-paste an entire journal article, or major portions of it, onto the page. The article was Online "predators" and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment, by Wolak, Janis; Finkelhor, David; Mitchell, Kimberly J.; Ybarra, Michele L. You also seem to have copied portions of a report called Online Threats to Youth: Solicitation, Harassment, and Problematic Content. I have deleted all of it, and I want to warn you that copying from other sources like this is not allowed at Wikipedia; see WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia is very strict that we are not allowed to add copyrighted material to the encyclopedia. In any case, quoting entire articles is not a helpful way to contribute to a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To add on to what MelanieN stated, copying a bit on a talk page is allowed, when citing a source; the same goes for Wikipedia articles, as long as the material is appropriately attributed (such as put within quotation marks). See WP:Close paraphrasing as well. But you have been copying too much of the text. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You just did it again, this time copying or close-paraphrasing from Child Abuse Interpol Conference Paper: Child abuse material and the Internet: Cyberpsychology of online child related sex offending, by Aikin, M., & Berry, M. J. (2011). I deleted it, and you need to STOP DOING THIS. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Administrators have the ability to block a user who repeatedly posts copyrighted material. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of copyright law is the Fair Use Doctrine designed to balance the rights of a work’s creator with the work’s potential benefit to society and free speech rights. Fair Use allows the photocopying, downloading and printing of copyrighted works, without securing permission, for these purposes: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research while giving the original author credit for their work which I did! I believe there is something else at hand here and would like a third opinion. Copyright does not extend to ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work. The above works you mention have not been copyrighted; perhaps because they have been paid for with TAX dollars. When the public underwrites the research that academics do using grants for instance they can require in return that the research results must be made available to the public, without allowing for the limited period of exclusive exploitation. This is one of the arguments for the idea of open access to the scholarly literature. I would like to have my articles reviewed by a third person for alleged copyright infringement because the articles moderators referenced are not copyrighted.(Fgillice (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC))
 * An uninvolved third person, below, has reviewed the situation and has hopefully made it clear: you MAY NOT copy (or close-paraphrase) material from other places and paste it into Wikipedia. This is not just a matter of copyright law, it is also a matter of Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Noted(Fgillice (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC))

Help me!
Why were my articles deleted. Part of copyright law is the Fair Use Doctrine designed to balance the rights of a work’s creator with the work’s potential benefit to society and free speech rights. Fair Use allows the photocopying, downloading and printing of copyrighted works, without securing permission, for these purposes: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research while giving the original author credit for their work which I did! I believe there is something else at hand here and would like a third opinion. Copyright does not extend to ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work. The above works you mention have not been copyrighted; perhaps because they have been paid for with TAX dollars. When the public underwrites the research that academics do using grants for instance they can require in return that the research results must be made available to the public, without allowing for the limited period of exclusive exploitation. This is one of the arguments for the idea of open access to the scholarly literature. I would like to have my articles reviewed by a third person for copyright infringement.(Fgillice (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC))

(Fgillice (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC))


 * First of all, that article was tagged as "Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association". So much for "have not been copyrighted". Secondly, even if copyright law allowed the reproduction of that article (and pasting the entire article to a talk page is really stretching "fair use", especially since a link would do just as well), Wikipedia's policy on non-free content does not. Wikipedia prides itself on being a free encyclopedia whose content everybody may re-use and modify for any purpose, including commercial purposes, something incompatible with fair use. You should also take a look at WP:SOAP, which seems highly relevant here. Huon (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and do better. All I want to do is bring the logical fallacies to light that is all nothing more. NO SOAP BOX just facts, empirically proven facts. Researchers have been pumping out obscene quantities of so called research with a publish or perish mindset without one bit of empirical evidence to back them up. If Wikipedia wants people to keep believing a lie so be it; there is nothing I can do when someone else holds the eraser. Current research concerning child pornography is not only misunderstood but frequently mis-characterized and unfortunate. The use of logical fallacies is pervasive and the actual threats kids face is much different than the threats most people imagine because it is they themselves that are producing it. News coverage has regularly mischaracterized research leading to inaccurate perceptions of what risks kids face using pre internet research where a person literally had to seek it out and put much effort in doing so. Today it is just point and click and the kids themselves not some dirty old man. Child porn content isn't even needed anymore because child porn hash tags flood P2P file sharing sites; the same hash-tags without content that law enforcement software filters for you IP address; this explains the huge amount of people getting busted for it. Kitty Wolf of CautionClick.com states Law Enforcement has been issuing search warrants every hour of the day 24/day, 168/week, 672/month, 8064/year and more.

It seems everybody and their brother has a child porn hashtag database like THORN. Over the years the entertainment industry has successfully linked "Child Porn" to internet filters, ISP's, and coerced Congress in passing laws in an attempt to make it easier to force censorship around the globe on the ill conceived theory that this will somehow reduce copyright infringement and Child Porn. At times they're completely upfront about this, admitting that "CP is great!" because it gets politicians to do what they want. Approximately one in every 117 adult males are now in prison; over 8,000/yr. go to jail for looking at pictures and nothing more. The cost is around $30,000/ inmate and they have been arresting people for this NON VIOLENT, NO CONTACT, NO HARM behaviour for over a decade; 80,000 in jail for looking at pictures. Do the math. This country is broke meaning it is borrowed money and your childrens childrens, children will be paying for it. Now that is child abuse. As a matter of fact the the majority of researchers on the child abuse industry bandwagon are their for the grants and employment. The only empirical evidence is less than five studies; make that less than none. All are self report studies using old psychology in an instant society where all knowledge is a click away; if one desires and possess the patience, tolerance and perseverance that is required. I hope and pray many do if only to see what I have discovered about the child abuse industry with all those involved. From the halls of Congress to everyone on a computer who enjoys the freedom of thought and have the ability to carry that out thought to fruition after finding the truth. So be afraid be very afraid as Congress and religious zealots use children to manipulate the system. This isn't a soap box just the truth! So you decide what is important for people to know; the current truth or researchers using pre-internet research. (Fgillice (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC))


 * "Bringing the logical fallacies to light" is a prime example of soapboxing, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Please do your political advocacy elsewhere. Huon (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--