User talk:Lulu2u11

Chloé Dygert
Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Chloé Dygert because they didn't appear constructive. It might help to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia a bit. Have a great day! Explicition (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Dygert
I noticed you're adding more uncited text and removing sourced info. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be verifiable and reflect what reliable sources say. Please don't add things to page if they are unsourced. Explicition (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks Lulu2u11 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I did not miss that the material you copied was placed within quotemarks which are typically an exception to copyright issues, but quoted material has to be used sparingly

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Let me note that, in addition to S. Philbrick's concern, there is another problem with the material you were using. The source is identified as "paid content". Specifically, The Vitamin Shoppe paid for it to be on the Sports Illustrated website. This makes it not a standard Sports Illustrated article with the presumed level of reliable sourcing, but something more in the nature of an advertisement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)