User talk:Adventuresinafrica

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Adventuresinafrica, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Mitsubishi Pajero have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia: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) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mercedes-Benz G-Class seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Your edit to Mitsubishi Pajero has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, Adventuresinafrica. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Pipistrel Virus, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

This warning is because text you have tried to add to this article reads like the sort of whitewashing of criticism that would be expected from the manufacturer's marketing department. Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahunt, thank you for your comment. I have never worked for Pipistrel nor have I any affiliation to them nor do I own a Pipistrel nor am I a 'fanboy' of any description. I edited the section for clarity.

The original contribution I edited was in the first place an anecdotal, subjective opinion of a journalist which shouldn't have a place on a factual site such as Wikipedia. We could fill pages with journalistic opinion but they are not objective facts.

The original author had added the manufacturer's response to this statement but in an extremely summarised wording that could (to the reader) imply a different meaning to what the manufacturer actually stated. I expanded on the sentence with excerpts from the actual response from the manufacturer that were shared on the exact same page authored by that journalist. These comments made much clearer what the manufacturer responded and gave important context.

The original paragraph stated the manufacturer's response as 'this issue was common among this category of plane, and no head injuries were recorded' which implies the category of vehicle is at fault for these injuries when in fact it's common across ALL categories of light aircraft, not just LSAs and did not make mention of the improved crashworthiness features the spar added.

I edited it for clarity, adding the actual reason for what the journalist claimed contributed to a lack of crashworthiness, and added the expanded response from the manufacturer that essentially explained the additional reasons for the presence of the main spar in the cabin and how it improved crashworthiness based on their actual testing. 'The main wing spar improved crash protection in a roll over and improved cabin intrusion, and that no head injuries were recorded in the accidents that had occurred.' I also added a paragraph from the same journalist's page where he spoke to industry professionals who recommended flight helmets in light aircraft due to the common occurrence of head injuries in this entire category as well as general aviation during accidents, not just LSA or this aircraft in particular, which didn't have an issue with this specific concern the journalist brought up in the first place, when compared to other aircraft.

I don't believe it to be factually neutral and objective if a subjective, anecdotal claim can be made and published, but an expanded answer to this anecdotal claim, from an objective, test-based standpoint is considered whitewashing.

It would be the same as me saying "AdventuresinAfrica criticised the Honda Civic for poor crashworthiness due to having foam-filled plastic bumpers instead of steel." And then someone edits to add clarity and the manufacturer's response of "Honda responded to this criticism by citing the improved impact absorption and greater cabin intrusion protection offered by foam bumpers, compared to traditional bumpers. the ANCAP testing board typically recommends foam-filled bumpers as they reduce the forces transmitted to the passenger." Is that whitewashing?

Either the anecdotal claim (which has been debased) should be removed, or the expanded response from the manufacturer should be allowed to be inserted. Adventuresinafrica (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can note that we already have a longstanding consensus on this issue at Talk:Pipistrel Virus. If you would like to reopen that debate there, then be my guest, but there is no point in making arguments here where other editors watching that page will not see it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Nzblacknumberplate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nzblacknumberplate.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]