User talk:JennyDjerv

April 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Postmodernism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting.  freshacconci  (✉) 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello JennyDjerv, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Postmodernism have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of 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 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 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. Theroadislong (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
It's time to stop the nonsense!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Postmodernism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Can you tell me exactly what is wrong with my edit? JennyDjerv (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Others have explained already. It's apparently a copyright violation. Even if that were not that case, what you have written is poorly sourced -- a block of subjectively written text with one vague citation at the end. If this is useful information, it would need to be rewritten and sourced better. And finally, you are just repeatedly pasting the same text in, over and over, without an explanation, despite the fact that three or more editors have told you there were problems. Everyone has tried to be patient and explain the problems but you have gone ahead and put it back, again and again, without a word. If someone disputes your edit, particularly if you are trying to add a paragraph or more to a page, you bring this discussion to the article talk page. You don't keep edit warring and ignore what others are saying. The source you provided needs to be verified. If the text is copied, we cannot use it. If the information is useful, it needs rewriting and better sourcing.  freshacconci  (✉) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The content appears to have been copied and pasted from here Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I dont agree on the fact that my edit is a copyright question since it has references. A text is not more right if there are serveral references? I use the same type of reference-system as in academic text. I can't see that 'your' text is more truth according to references? However, this 'war' is over! I will use this as an example of how Wikipedia can serve as 'one-sided' knowledge in a academic rapport. I will not continue to add my text. It was a part of an examination. JennyDjerv (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't read the section above entitled "Wikipedia and copyright' Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing tips for newcomers
''Click on "show" to see contents."