Jump to content

User talk:Liberty20036

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Foundation for Defense of Democracies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Psychonaut (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation to http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd at the end of the intro.Liberty20036 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. But providing a citation to the source doesn't change the fact that you have reproduced it without permission. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I put quotes around the copies material would that qualify? I have been in touch with the webmaster from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/ and he has specified that he has no problem sharing that specific content, however he does not want to grant Wikipedia full copyright permission to everything from the site. Liberty20036 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply quoting the material is not sufficient, as it forms an entire section of the article; the amount of text is too great to be considered fair use. And obtaining permission from the Foundation for the text to be reproduced on Wikipedia also isn't acceptable; material contributed here needs to be released by the copyright holder under a license which places no restrictions on modification and redistribution by third parties. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for further information and instructions. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

[edit]

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Psychonaut (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lugia2453. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Foundation for Defense of Democracies without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Lugia2453 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Foundation for Defense of Democracies, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Eyesnore 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake I should have included an explanation. For Foundation for Defense of Democracies I was simple removing trying to make the page neutral. That page appears to be under a consistent effort to misrepresent the organization it is about. What can be done?Liberty20036 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the copyright violation template again. It says very clearly at the top, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." You are neither an administrator, nor a copyright clerk, nor an OTRS agent. If you want to volunteer to write a non-infringing version of the article, please follow the instructions on the template. Continuing to remove copyright violation templates is considered vandalism, and you will be blocked for such behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing a rewritten version of the article at Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. A copyright clerk or administrator will review it and, provided there are no further copyright problems with it, merge it back into the main article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

[edit]

Before doing any further editing to Foundation for Defense of Democracies, please read WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR. Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia--and happy editing! Qworty (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Hello, I've moved your draft page Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp to a subpage of your userpage, at User:Liberty20036/Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp, since article mainspace no longer supports subpages. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It varies. But I've also removed the copyvio content from the draft: Wikipedia is legally obliged not to host that anywhere on the site, including in drafts. Altered Walter (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mix-up, but I've been informed at my talk page that the draft should have stayed in the main article space, so I've moved it back to Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed most of the text? It is properly sited. What's the difference between that and some other think tank descriptions. Ex. Brookings Institution?Liberty20036 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please refrain from making WP:OTHERCRAP comparisons. The current editorial state of other articles has no bearing on the current state of the article being discussed. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS

[edit]

On the talk page of the article that you insist you WP:OWN, you recently stated that you do not accept the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Please review that policy once again. Discussion of the article has gone on for quite some time now, with several experienced editors involved, and so far not one single person has agreed with your proposed edits. Don't you think it's time that you concede the fact that the consensus does not agree with you on this article, and move on? There are millions of other articles on Wikipedia to edit. You are welcome to take your pick. Or--if you insist on being a WP:SPA, tell us why this is the only Wikipedia article that interests you. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never "insisted" I own it and never said I "do not accept the policy of consensus." I don't know where you're getting this from but clearly indicates that your bias and unreasonable. I don't see what consensus you're talking about? No one is arguing against me on the substance of the article. I've already explained my interest in this article. You're also welcome to edit other articles. Actually I recommend it since I know I'll be ignoring you. Good luck out there!Liberty20036 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I flag the page for having no consensus and you undo that and then accuse me of being disruptive? How does that work?Liberty20036 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't flag it for having no consensus. There is in fact no such tag. If you persist with your disruptive editing on the article, you are headed for a block. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I flagged it for not being neutral which is clearly the case since its just criticism. It says: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. (which is the case) Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (also the case) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." hmmm who keeps doing that? Does it seemed resolved? Nope. NOT YOUR PAGELiberty20036 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took out the word "Criticism." Since this word is what has caused you to jump up and down protesting this article for days now, consuming so much of other people's energies, I hope that this will resolve your issue. I don't believe it's a "criticism" to call someone "conservative," so since the section is well-sourced, let's just leave it at that and move on to editing other articles. Qworty (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not consensus. Criticism is what that section is because it is based the CRITICISM of people who disagree with the organization. My issue is that the only thing on the page is negative and bias description of the organization and says nothing factual about it. Having a criticism section is fair and align with wikipedia's guidelines, it just can't be the only thing on the page because then its a soapbox and not a NPOV. Why don't you move on and let someone neutral with a little more knowledge on the subject edit the page.Liberty20036 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow. Are you looking at the same article? Because "criticism" of the organization is certainly not the only thing in it. Qworty (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You mean the list of a handful of its publications and a few of the people associated with it, meanwhile any description of it is a criticism section. You have nothing to argue so you're going after that? It basically is the whole article. Instead of obstructing any additions to the article that actually describe the org its about, why don't you contribute something. You're not debating content me with me, you just picking arguments for the sake of arguments.Liberty20036 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL violations

[edit]

This [1] and this [2] are unacceptable. Dealing with editors you disagree with in a content dispute by calling them names--"vandals," "stone throwers," "uninformed," etc.--is a violation of WP:CIVIL. These continual violations of WP:CIVIL will eventually lead to a block. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mike V • Talk 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were all done. A resolution was found. Liberty20036 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty20036&oldid=1252124911"