User talk:The19trier

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King ( talk ) 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nomination of Entrepreneurial Decision-making for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Entrepreneurial Decision-making is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Entrepreneurial Decision-making until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 02:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Entrepreneurial bias


A tag has been placed on Entrepreneurial bias requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mydigitalfc.com/entrepreneurship/overconfidence-illusion-control-shape-entrepreneurial-risks-994. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a concern of multiple copyright violations in your edit history, regarding articles you've created or to which you've contributed. I'll request further assistance. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

 * From what I can see, you've had at least two articles that have contained copyright violations and it's extremely likely that there are more. You've been editing since 2008, so it stands to reason that at some point in time you would have to have come across Wikipedia's policies on copyright infringement. Even without that, the average person should have taken a class where they were told that taking someone else's work and passing it off as their own is wrong. While a copyright infringement isn't exactly the same thing as plagiarism, the same spirit applies here since it's assumed on Wikipedia that if you post a new article that this is your own, original work and not something that was liberally copied from other places. Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very, very' seriously because essentially it is the theft of someone's work. This isn't even going into some of the various issues that copyright can pose as far as tone and phrasing goes, as most original text is not written in the neutral point of view and style that Wikipedia employs. In the case of journal articles it's perfectly fine for an author to write something in a way that could be seen as potentially promotional since the paper represents them as a person. A Wikipedia article is not meant to represent a person so it should be neutral in tone and not written in a way that could be seen as too casual.
 * I'm blocking you for one week. Once that week is up you can resume editing, but during this time you need to read over Wikipedia's editing policies on WP:COPYVIO. Reading over the guidelines on sourcing (WP:RS) and WP:NPOV would also be good. I would also encourage you to go through one of Wikipedia's training modules at WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE as a sign of good faith since that would give you an overview of editing and it would ensure that you have, in fact, been given a thorough overview of policy. However if you continue to post copyrighted text you will be blocked again and this time it will likely be permanent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have to give you one more warning though: we will be checking through many of your edits and if it's found that you've been doing this a lot since you first signed up (ie, more than 3-4 articles) it is possible that I may be back to make this a permanent block without giving you a second chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm turning this into an indefinite block. From what I can see, you've been doing this since 2010 at the very least and I've also found evidence that suggests that you are a professor and that you've been posting your own work on Wikipedia. Posting your own work poses two problems:
 * Copyright is not automatically assumed, so until a ticket is filed through WP:ORTS copyright is automatically assumed to not belong to the poster. However even then, this still poses issues with tone for the reasons I posted above.
 * Posting your own work can be seen as you trying to promote yourself on Wikipedia. Self-promotion is not tolerated on Wikipedia and the general consensus is that if your work is important enough to be posted or cited on Wikipedia, someone else should do it or will likely do it.
 * However what makes this all problematic is that you didn't just post your work, you posted work by a large number of people. As a professor you should automatically be aware of how very, very important it is to avoid reposting someone else's work in a manner that makes it come across like your own. The school equivalent of this is plagiarism and it's something that can lead to a student getting thrown out of school - something that professors are duty bound to make sure that their students are made aware of. Even if you are not this professor, as a researcher you should also be aware that taking someone else's work and essentially giving it a light re-write is not considered to be generally acceptable because it can be seen as stealing someone else's work unless you do it exactly and specifically right. Brief quoting is fine, but taking entire sections nearly verbatim is not. In one article (Entrepreneurial bias) you took sections of this article... without even giving it the briefest of cites. There's no way that you shouldn't be aware of how important it is to avoid copyright violations/plagiarism to some extent. Because of this and because you've been doing this since 2010, I'm extending this block to an indefinite block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Being open source is irrelevant. Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for free reuse by anyone anywhere, including modification and commercial use. Copyright text is not licensed that way, and is not free for reuse. That's in addition to the usual copyright problems with republishing someone else's stuff anywhere... Peridon (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Peridon said. Just because Wikipedia is open source does not mean that the content you take from somewhere else is copyright free. If anything, that's why Wikipedia is so incredibly careful about respecting copyrights because it's a huge legal and an ethical concern. We do not want someone to post something, only for someone else to use it thinking that it is fair use... and then gets caught up in legal or school issues because someone posted copyrighted material on Wikipedia. I Again, as a researcher and professor you should already be aware of the ethical and legal concerns of copyrights and using other people's material. 04:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to know the definition of "modify". Not all open source documents are the same - some are open source but only allow people to borrow from it in different formats. Also, the tone of some documents may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, which was a common issue with many of your articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)