User talk:Jmonti824

Do not copy & paste text from other websites
Your addition to Dolby Digital has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. &mdash;J. M. (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I went a bit overboard in general and thanks for the feedback in general, however I need a little help identifying an example where I went wrong in regards to copyright. Jmonti824 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I figured it out, thanks. Jmonti824 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. But just in case... This edit:
 * "Update dead link for Dolby Digital 5.1 Creator, add missing sub-sections for Dolby Digital 5.1 Creator and Dolby Digital Recording. "
 * is a direct copy of and . There are two problems. First, generally, you cannot copy text from other websites on Wikipedia (unless they are public domain or compatibly licensed). See Copyright violations and Copyrights. You always have to use your own words (except for short quotations via quotation marks). Second, the language used on those webpages is not compatible with the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia requires. It reads like an advertisement. Do not use the word "you" in articles (see WP:YOU), do not use promotional wording that corporations use in their press releases and brochures, do not write Windows® instead of Windows, etc. All articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, in a formal tone.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I just wish I had understood this earlier. I actually went to great pains to quote the original text, believing this was more correct than 'using my own words' which seems more error prone.

I also wish I had the energy to go back and restore the info (the article has a lot of oriblems needing clarification) but it was exhausting the first time trying to keep the original quoted text, which you now explain is exactly the wrong way to do it. sigh.... maybe one day I'll revisit and correct the out of date info. Jmonti824 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Seven of Nine
Hi, I just reverted two edits you made to Seven of Nine, as you added a citation - however, this didn't support what you suggested within the text of the citation (instead of in the main body of the article) at all. So it has been removed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC) of
 * Urgh, would have been good if when I searched the page for "Voyager" if it'd actually worked the first time. I see the post you mean, but there's no evidence that the person is a reliable source. Unless you can evidence who the person posting was, we can't use it. If for example, Doug Drexler had posted it, then that'd be fine. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I wish there was some rhyme or reason to Wikipedia. The reference that I added was essentially a variation of an existing reference in the article "My Living Doll" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Living_Doll.

It is essentially a copy of the exact same note that was deemed acceptable there. "In Star Trek: Voyager, the character Seven of Nine is named after Rhoda - Robot AF709.[6]" I merely re-targeted this to (1) fit the current article including also the information about the Viyager profile and (2) carried over the info about Jack Chertok which was implied in the other article. If you wish to be consistent then please also 'FIX' the original article or justify why you did not. Jmonti824 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jmonti824 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, just frustrating trying to understand the actual standards applied to different articles. Are the same standards applied everywhere? Di some 'bad' refs remain just because they have been there forever? Jmonti824 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Too difficult to fix typos from a mobile browser. Not sure why Wikipedia stopped supporting the iPhone as a way to edit. Jmonti824 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edit at My Living Doll
I left a comment for you at Talk:My Living Doll setting out my objections to your revert of my edit. Also, your revert is marked as a minor edit. I don't think that was right. From WP:MINOR: "Any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not" is not a minor edit." Vadder (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

, Perhaps: "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if (when?) existing prints of the missing episodes are made available by private collectors." According to my re-reading of the source, the prints do exist and have already been found in private collections, and additonally the copyright owner has already commited to releasing them on DVD when they are made available by those collectors. My reading of the source is that this is a 'when' not an 'if' situation. Because the prints have been found, it would only be fair to say "IF (and when) the collectors make available...". You might argue that the phrase "I know the episodes are out there" is speculative, but the statement must be taken literally, and is a statement by the copyright holder who is in a position to know these facts. You might argue that "one day recovered" means they have not been found but this actually refers to restoring the prints and not to finding them, as in: " These [existing] films need to be preserved and restored " I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that a REVERT was a minor edit, especially in the case of vandalism (which your change was not) and will defer to your judgement that a REVERT is not always a minor edit. jmonti824 Jmonti824 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Citalopram. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for also providing an example. I see what you mean now and I went ahead and changed to an even more specific template:HHS content. Jmonti824 (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)