User talk:Sol-nemisis

You can't just slap statements up at Union State without sourcing them properly. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

please be careful with non-free copyrighted material
Your addition to 2011 Tripoli clashes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See your edit: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Tripoli_clashes&diff=423525994&oldid=423196543 ] It is clear that you are making many well-intended contributions to the Wikipedia, so please don't be upset by this warning. But please also remember that there are many other well-intending editors. This is a wiki, but copyright violations put all of our work at risk. If you really don't have time to think about what the key information in a source is and summarise it in original, simpler wording, then maybe just add it to the talk page of whatever article you're working on as a "quote" - and trust that someone else who has the time to do it properly will do so. If the information is notable enough, chances are that someone will be glad for your help in finding the info, and will carry out the next step of summarising it.

As a practical, more difficult example, let's look at your edit: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Battle_of_Brega&diff=prev&oldid=423104974 ], where you have (correctly) given a specific web page rather than a home page of a website (the latter is useless in the long term, except sometimes if archived): My thoughts (i am not a copyright lawyer, this is just from one Wikipedian thinking aloud): So my suggestion here (if it hasn't already been changed by now) would be something like: "Anti-Gaddafi forces captured 150 pro-Gaddafi fighters and their commander Brigadier General Alreefi in Brega." i'm sure you'll find plenty of other examples by looking at how your past edits have been modified by other people. Boud (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * source: "It has been confirmed by trusted sources that the revolutionaries have arrested Brigadier General Alreefi and 150 of his mercenaries in Brega."
 * your summary: "It was later reported that the Rebels had managed to capture Brigadier General Alreefi and 150 of his mercenaries in Brega."
 * unless there's a counterclaim, neither "confirmed by trusted sources" nor "was reported" give much useful information; we assume that if a RS reports the info, then it has considers it to be reasonably likely to be correct;
 * changing from "arrested" to "managed to capture" is paraphrasing - which does not (in itself) avoid copyright problems - it doesn't hurt to change the word, but there's no need to make things more complicated; "captured" is simpler than "managed to capture"; whether or not it is a capture or an arrest would depend on legal details that could be POV either way, but someone can always fix that later; if the word in the source is really the best word and not just a question of arbitrary style, then copying it is allowed under copyright law AFAIK
 * theoretically, the copyright question is: "Is this (word, words, sentence(s)) really the only accurate, concise way to summarise this information?" Even for something as short as "Brigadier General Alreefi and 150 of his mercenaries", it's not clear that this is the only accurate concise way of giving the info.
 * is "his" really important? does it add any notable info?
 * is "mercenaries" really important? is it likely to be reliable info, or just that someone assumed they were mercenaries and the news source was lazy about checking? we are allowed to use common sense and try to extract the most "solid" pieces of information claimed by the text that a source provides

Boud (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)