User talk:Rachelle Perlman

August 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Walter Rauff has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Walter Rauff was changed by Rachelle Perlman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.906577 on 2015-08-29T04:47:47+00:00.

Restrictions concerning new editors and the Arab-Israeli conflict
Per WP:ARBPIA3 you are not allowed to edit Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, please see at the top of Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Rachelle/Henia: although this response is much later, it's still relevant: I'm sure you haven't a clue what Huldra was talking about, so I will explain, briefly. As I mentioned in one of my other comments to you recently, some areas of the encyclopedia tend to attract a lot of disagreement and strife, and the Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly one of them.  Because of that, there are some restrictions on who may edit any article related to this topic.  One of these restrictions is the requirement for an editor who wishes to edit the article directly to have a minimum of 500 edits, which you did not have at the time Huldra wrote this message, and which you still don't have now. So, you are restricted from editing any such article.  This is not a specific decision concerning you personally, and applies to all new editors.  When you reach the required experience threshold, you will automatically be able to edit such articles; no action on your part is required.  At present, you may make edit requests on the article talk page for changes you would like to see made to the article, but per previous discussions we have had, I recommend against doing that for right now.


 * Aside  When addressing such comments to new editors, which by definition they are if they don't attain this threshold, could you please use the more helpful link target WP:ARBPIA3 which leads to the relevant part of this long and confusing ArbCom page?  And just to be more friendly, please consider piping it along the lines of Wikipedia's restrictions concerning new editors and the Arab-Israeli conflict, or some such.  In the same spirit, I have altered the formerly highly opaque title of this section for increased transparency, and added an Anchor to catch any existing links to the old name.  Thanks,  Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Refs and minor edits
Hi Rachelle Perlman. A couple quick requests, if I may. First, if you have reliable sources for the edits you made to The Holocaust, would you mind adding them ASAP? I think it's very important to keep that article in top-notch shape. Second, please remember not to mark such edits as minor. Thanks! Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

River Torch, thank you for taking the time to read my editing. I am an old lady who taught the Holocaust for many years and continue to do research. It is very difficult for me to behave as a digital native. I apologize. Rachelle Perlman (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry to say I've just removed the latest edits you made to The Holocaust because they lacked edit summaries to explain their purpose, they contained unsourced information (although I see you tried to add some sources), and they were malformed. It's perfectly clear to me that you're editing in good faith, and I strongly suspect that you do have worthwhile contributions to make. Unfortunately, there are certain established rules that need to be followed to if we are to ensure that unverifiable and potentially erroneous information doesn't creep into our articles. It's a huge challenge, and the only way that an all-volunteer editing corps can hope to meet it is to be fairly relentless about insisting the rules be followed. As I implied in my earlier comment to you, curating articles such as The Holocaust can be especially challenging because they're huge targets for everyone from garden-variety vandals to actual Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists, and some of those people are clever and subtle.
 * I don't know what else to tell you about editing here. Few of us are "digital natives"—I grew up without benefit (?) of the Internet—and Wikipedia has a considerably steeper learning curve than many other interactive sites. If you have the time and the patience, I'd be more than willing to walk you through some of the basics of responsible editing. The Teahouse is also a good resource for new editors wanting to ask questions, and we even have a mentoring program. In any event, please include an edit summary every time you edit an article, and if you need to explain a given edit more thoroughly, use the article's talk page (e.g., Talk:The Holocaust). Thanks for replying, anyway, and good luck. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Holocaust, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations...
Several of the latest contributions to The Holocaust are clear copy-pastes of information from various sources. Wikipedia has very strong policies about copying text without proper attribution - which you really need to familiarize yourself with. They are detailed at WP:COPYVIO, and it basically boils down to anything that is a word-for-word statement needs to be in quotation marks with proper attribution. The edits here included at least three instances of copyright violations, which I've detailed on the talk page - Talk:The Holocaust. Please do not return the edits to the article without making them comply with our copyright policies. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

More problems plus a suggestion
Hello again. I got your note, which you left by mistake on my user page instead of my user talk page. (I've moved it.) It's usually best to keep one discussion in a single place, and I do make that request on my user talk page, but I appreciate your taking the time to touch base with me. I'd also like to thank you for refraining from marking your edits as minor.

I'm sorry to see you're still having problems at The Holocaust article. There's very little else in the way of advice I can give you. The Wikipedia community expects contributors to its articles to observe certain basic procedures. These include:
 * citing a reliable source when adding or making substantive changes to content;
 * writing citations in a standard format that clearly delineates each reference from the content it's supporting;
 * using edit summaries to indicate the nature or purpose of the edit;
 * discussing any disputed edits on the article's talk page (it's disputed, by definition, if you add it and it keeps getting removed);
 * never copying content from any source without using proper attribution.

I also note that someone with a username similar to yours has been making edits very similar to yours on the same article. This raises a red flag for any experienced editor who is watching the article. (See Sock puppetry if you're curious why.)

Wikipedia procedures can be arcane, and they're not always easy to assimilate, but the Wikipedia community requires compliance nonetheless. The only further suggestion I can make is that, if you're unable to meet the community's expectations, you might consider posting your proposed edits to the article's talk page rather than to the article itself. That will allow experienced editors to evaluate each addition, ask you for more clarification if necessary, and format everything properly before it becomes a part of the article. This is not the usual way of doing things around here, and there are liable to be objections, but if you're willing to try that approach I'm willing to work with you in the interests of improving that one article. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   05:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Rachelle Perlman, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to The Holocaust 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. I see that Ealdgyth has already mentioned this to you – this is here to give you some links to useful reading Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable citation in Holocaust article. Help
Hi. I thought you said you were going to use your other ("Henia Perlman") Wikipedia account?

Your changes to the Holocaust article which I reverted have been hidden because they contained copyrighted material. I don't know what happened to your user page. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am at my little grandchildren's apartment with a laptop, which I used as Rachelle Perlman.
 * The laptop also gave me technological problems
 * I did try, and sometimes succeeded to use Henia.
 * I apologize to all.
 * I will try to go to a library.
 * I also have a physical handicap.Rachelle Perlman (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * From some of your posts, it does not sound like you're reading the user page for your other user name. Please see User talk:Henia Perlman.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
You need to stop using multiple accounts. Regardless of the circumstances, having two accounts at once without a very clear editing or administrative need and according to very firm rules is considered sock-puppetry. Sockpuppetry states:
 * The general rule is one editor, one account.
 * Maybe ONUnicorn will be able to mentor you out of your present circumstances (re: your mentoring query at their talkpage). At the very least you need to stop using both accounts, and from now on use and stick with only one. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)