User talk:Worldlywise

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Worldlywise, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Pay Day (1922 film) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also 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. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Adventurer (1917 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Campbell ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Adventurer_%281917_film%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Adventurer_%281917_film%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on His New Job
Content you added to the above article appears to have been extremely closely paraphrased from http://doctormacro.com/Movie%20Summaries/H/His%20New%20Job.htm. Copying text from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. This is your second warning for copyright violations; please stop or you risk being blocked from editing. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - Hmm. This is interesting.  Regarding His New Job, most of the description I did was rewritten from a 1965 British reference book on Charlie Chaplin titled The Films of Charlie Chaplin.  The plot of the movie actually differs from what appeared in that book.  I have never heard of the website where the link leads.  Whoever wrote the plot summary for that website took the plot description directly from the book.  At least I altered some of the details to actually make it match what occurred in the movie.


 * The Pay Day “problem” was that I did quote directly from a review—and I said so. I believe the issue was that the review from 1922 was still under copyright 98 years later from a publication which still exists!Worldlywise (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If it was published in the US prior to 1923, then its copyright has expired and it is in the public domain. Therefore your quote can be as long and as direct as you wish. However, you should add a complete citation to the exact issue of the journal to avoid any appearance of plagiarism, and to meet our verifiability (WP:V) standards. In the case of an extensive quote, you might wish to add the phrase "a work in the public domain" to the citation. This is implied by the date parameter in the citation, but it might keep other editors from raising the issue. -Arch dude (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References for your reviews?
Thanks for adding the two reviews to Kid Auto Races at Venice. Do you have complete citations for these two reviews? I cannot find them online. you mentioned that the first is from Bioscope and the second is from The Cinema, but I don't know what those are. If you are not familiar with our citation and reference syntax, just give me the particulars and I can add add the citations. If those two sources are themselves notable, we might also want to add articles about them. They appear to be old trade journals, maybe? Such publications are often notable. complete citations are useful both to avoid any appearance of plagiarism and to meet our verification standard. -Arch dude (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * - Bioscope and The Cinema are old periodicals that were reviewing movies back in the silent film era. I don’t know a lot about them, except that they have been out of print for close to a century, so I don't know if full Wikipedia articles could be written about them. Actually, I found the reviews reprinted in a 1965 book The Films of Charlie Chaplin. I've considered your advice, and I agree that I should have provided more clarification on this point. I had thought that just providing the name of the periodical would have been enough here, but I've been looking into Wikipedia's citation rules and decided to add in the additional information.Worldlywise (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you did just fine. The the only lack of clarity is really trivial and is easily corrected. Since you did nto fine and read those periodicals, you are quite correct to quote from the book. You just needed to make it clear that that is what you did. In an ideal world, I suppose some omnipotent editor with an infinite amount of time to spare might go and find the periodicals,but you are under no obligation to do so. And thanks again for your work. I think the reviews add a lot to the article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bob Meusel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speedy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bob_Meusel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bob_Meusel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leif Hansen (Norwegian boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Adkins ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Leif_Hansen_%28Norwegian_boxer%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Leif_Hansen_%28Norwegian_boxer%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Stay away from me
It's come to my attention that over the last 17 months or so you have intermittently shown up to discussions I was involved in and either (a) disagreed with whatever position I happened to be taking or (b) made an offensive and/or slimy remark about me personally. I don't know who you are and what your beef with me is (you're not a so-called "inclusionist" AFAICT since you've only !voted in seven AFDs), but whatever the case, drop it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything offensive. I just noticed your harassment and factually inaccurate personal attacks on Andrew Davidson and other users. This is prohibited by our rules and not useful to building Wikipedia. I don't have any beef with any editors, but I do think constructive editing is preferable to hounding and strongly discourage you from continuing your harassment of other editors.Worldlywise (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "harassment"? "factually inaccurate personal attacks"? You need to back up such outrageous accusations with evidence, or else they constitute personal attacks. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also note that ArbCom have clarified that monitoring the edits of someone who is violating Wikipedia policy is not hounding. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you by any chance receive any email or off-wiki contact "informing you" of my "harassment" of Andrew? Your happening to show up to that MFD when you had never edited MFD even once before seems surprisingly coincidental, and the content of your comment looked like you were responding to someone's "interpretation" of the discussion rather than the actual discussion... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Andrew Davidson was defending himself against clearly false accusations. It was just a harmless glossary, and it's typical of what I've seen that you make wild and inaccurate assumptions about perfectly acceptable material. I haven't seen Andrew Davidson violate any Wikipedia policies, in contrast to your repeated violations. I'm sure you can see from the deletion discussion that the overwhelming majority disagreed with you, and many specifically described how your actions were disruptive. Trying to deny that your actions constitute unambiguous harassment is just playing "I didn't hear that", and Wikipedia users ignore the community at their own risk. I maintain what I said before that harassment is wrong, and that you should not continue to harass other users.Worldlywise (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What "repeated violations"??? And, you "just noticed"? How did you just notice? You are not a frequent contributor to MFD. Heck, last June you weren't a frequent contributor to ANI -- and you still aren't. If you don't want to explain how you came across that discussion, can you at least grant me the courtesy of not commenting on discussions involving me again? I don't care if you make personal remarks about other editors if that is just your standard operating procedure, but I would appreciate it if you didn't make them about me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I often look through the articles for deletion, and sometimes I also check the contributions of those who vote in articles for deletion. When I checked Dream Focus' contributions, I noticed he was being one-sidedly harassed by you, and when I happened to check Andrew Davidson's contributions later, I noticed that he was also being stalked by you in the same manner. The diffs I saw were clear, and it's pointless to deny it. I don’t usually speak up, but if I see that people who are following the rules are being harassed by someone who is not following the rules, I at very least don't want to condone it. The fact that you're continuing to deny the facts makes me wonder whether you'll change or not. I guess you can bury your head in the sand if you like, but I still hope you will resist the urge to engage in any further harassment in the future. I know I can sometimes be a little abrasive, but I try to speak honestly. If you need to interact with Andrew Davidson again, just post one polite rebuttal or one focused vote, without mentioning his name or engaging in bludgeoning.Worldlywise (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Boxers
Hi. Why do you keep making edits like this when the info is covered word-for-word literally in the line above?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I include the round of the tournament (e.g. Round of 32) and the detailed results of the match (such as the scoring of the decision). I do this in keeping with the style of the other longer edits for Olympic boxers.Worldlywise (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not mark major edits as minor
Hi Worldlywise! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Spring Fever (1919 film) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

James J. Braddock
Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to James J. Braddock, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Since you've accumulated close to 3,000 edits since 2017, I assume you know by now that Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation. Please do not add information without them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk)

Garnet Bailey
Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Garnet Bailey, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pete Stemkowski, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Cassiopeia  talk  00:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)