User talk:Tweak279

March 2010
Your addition 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 web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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. Deconstructhis (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Cure. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Cure. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tweak279, by 'Google sampling' the text in the Antipsychotic article, I've now encountered two specific instances where you have apparently copied and pasted material to the article from copyrighted sources over the past several days. Adding an attribution to quoted material is of course required by policy, but neither of the additions that I've encountered so far indicate that the material being cited is a word for word 'lifting' of the source material itself; without any indication of it being a direct quotation. Both instances that I've encountered appear to be sourced to:. I'm going to revert the material you've added recently added to that article, until this potentially serious breach of copyright policy is examined more closely and resolved; hopefully through consensus. In my opinion, it's quite important that you discuss these sorts of issues with other editors so that they can be assured that you understand that utilizing copyrighted material without permission is not permitted in Wikipedia. Please do not continue to add potentially controversial material to articles without engaging other editors in dialogue, either here or on a given article's discussion page in an attempt at reaching consensus. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you need to get a grip - as I just posted to the talk page of antipsychotic: "Me waits for this person to realize that the page they found is actually a copy of Wikipedia not hte other way round, and from some time ago as well. Tweak279 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)" Just because I made one mistake on psychopathy where I should have put a brief quote in quote marks, or instead described what the source said, there's no need to wikistalk & discriminate against me. Tweak279 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, let's keep the discussion confined to the content itself, rather than speculations on the motivations of other editors. Labelling other editors "wikistalkers" is usually considered not acting in "good faith" WP:FAITH. We all make mistakes on occasion out here; what I'm looking for is clarification on these issues and in my own meagre fashion I'm attempting to interpret and apply policy. If approached in a thoughtful fashion, I'm more than willing to openly discuss any of my editing choices, they're all on record on my contributions page. What twigged me into looking more closely at the psychopathy edit you're referring to was simply the fact that it was a direct lifting of material from a source without quotation marks. I'm sure that you can understand that it is on occasion very difficult to differentiate between a straightforward copyright violation by someone who doesn't understand policy and someone who forgot to add appropriate punctuation. That was especially so in this case, where the material was in its own separate short paragraph and bore no evidence contextually of it simply being a description of "what the source said". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I retrospectively note that the brief extract in psychopathy article was directly accompanied by a source with a URL link to the text, therefore this gave no reason to think that anything was going on in terms of material being added without attribution. Furthermore: Tweak279 (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From antipsychotic article: "Me continues to wait for this person to retract and apologize for their mistaken defamatory comments. Tweak279 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)" Tweak279 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From antipsychotic article: "It appears that HealthyPlace did do something wrong, since the Creative Commons License appears to require attribution, and it appears to be copyleft (Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License). II  | (t - c) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)" Tweak279 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I'm outta here. Tweak279 (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)