User talk:Morefactswiki

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Morefactswiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wow, I'm replying to someone on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Copyright for what i'm looking for and then some random person did a "blocked indefinitely" and made claims against me. This person is really an asshole. I'm editing an article and then there's a "copyright" problem and then we have all this trouble. I wanted to see where on wikipedia it specifically says copyright is any part of a work or text, and not the entire whole, and then someone out of nowhere "blocked indefinitely". What is this? This is terrible. Why can't any editors know where wikipedia specifically says that? How in the world can editors not ask to see that 'copyright' is any part of a work when that's the case for artwork, music and anything else. That's such a fair question, and then someone just "blocked indefinitely". This is so unreasonable "blocked indefinitely" for basically nothing, why is this even allowed Morefactswiki (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Calling someone an asshole is enough to get you blocked in and of itself. That you chose to do that in an unblock request tells me that it would be a very bad idea to unblock you. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Someone randomly changed the work I did when I was in the middle of editing??? Is that normal on wikipedia that no editors and improve anything?

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Someone said some text was copyrighted. Copyright is usually the whole artwork or work, not a piece or portion of the text. Are there any copyright experts or anywhere to ask or anything?

Also they didnt even delete just the 'copyright' part, they deleted everything, and I was in the middle of editing and didn't even get to finish.

It is normal to have your text reverted if it is copyright. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. It doesn't matter if it's a sentence or a paragraph. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more.

As far as the other text, their edit summary implies that the text you added was not neutral/promotional. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Morefactswiki. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Paula White, 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. firefly ( t · c ) 14:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is this for and why is this the first thing you've posted on my page? Morefactswiki (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to Paula White or her ministry? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Morefactswiki! 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. 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.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either 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.
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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. (copied from https://www.speakersassociates.com/speaker/paula-white/) Thank you. firefly ( t · c ) 14:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

copyright is usually the whole thing, not a portion of a text.

see User talk:Firefly#?

where can i check on this, is there any copyright experts anywhere? Morefactswiki (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to be copyright experts to tell you that materials here must be in your own words. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no that is false, any editors need to see the rules for your claims Morefactswiki (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so i asked about copyright and i want to see where exactly even a part of a text counts as copyright and that it's not the whole artwork or work that counts as what is copyrighted Morefactswiki (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, pretty much anything that's published anywhere by anyone, even if part of a larger work, is protected by copyright unless otherwise stated. That's not a Wikipedia policy, that's just how copyright works. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 15:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok well clearly nobody else knows and instead they just butt in to a situation where im asking for the evidence and they dont give any

instead that person said "tell you that materials here" (ok wikpedia)

and then i get blamed Morefactswiki (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're replying to my question by not answering, and just saying 'We don't need' - that is not helpful, i dont want to talk to you Morefactswiki (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clearly not here to contribute along with some serious competence issues.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why in the world are there ppl like this, "Admins: If you think an admin action I've taken recently is incorrect, go ahead and undo or change it. There is no need to discuss it with me first." - does things, and doesn't even talk, its really crazy. why are there ppl like this, this is why none of the articles have updated info. then when ppl are updating it, i just have problems, its really crazy Morefactswiki (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's your attitude. It's the way you say things. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, saying "no that is false" to someone telling you to write in your own words on Wikipedia just means you do not know how copyright works. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> the way you say things

i literally was editing the article, i didnt say anything to anyone

then there was a 'copyright' problem, and everything was fine until now so why am being blamed when i was the one updating the article?? Morefactswiki (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"i didnt say anything to anyone" well you clearly did, otherwise the admins would not be having this reaction. your Wikipedia contributions are public, and I can clearly see that you attitude was not the best when responding to them. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> "no that is false" to someone telling you to write in your own words on Wikipedia just means you do not know how copyright works

so i already asked elsewhere for where i could specifically see it said on a wikipedia page, and then i get 'blocked indefinitely' for that Morefactswiki (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst person ever. Unbelievable.

@Morefactswiki: I don't think insulting the admin who blocked you is going to convince him to remove the block. As mentioned by myself and multiple others, copyright applies to any part of an original work. That's not Wikipedia's idea, that is how copyright works in the United States. Also, contrary to what you mentioned in your unblock request, the same also applies to artwork and music. Even if the opposite were true, all contributions to Wikipedia should still be in your own words, otherwise that defeats the purpose of the collaborative encyclopedia. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> contrary to what you mentioned in your unblock request, the same also applies to artwork and music.

i haven't seen examples of this in artwork/music, so i asked for where specifically i could see that on wikipedia - that any part of a work is copyrighted

theres many examples of remix so i asked what i wanted to see

> Even if the opposite were true, all contributions to Wikipedia should still be in your own words,

well i didnt see this said specifically on any rules pages that were linked Morefactswiki (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules on copyright imply that contributions should be in your own words. WP:COPYRIGHT has the info you might be looking for. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this a third time: This isn't a Wikipedia policy. That's just how copyright works. If you're looking for a place to see this information on Wikipedia, just look at the many messages on your talk page right here. You can read more at Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Copyright infringement, Berne Convention, and Derivative work. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author. Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL. In other words, you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC BY-SA license or (b) dual-licensed with the GFDL and another license with terms compatible with the CC BY-SA license. If you are the sole author of the material, you must license it under both CC BY-SA and GFDL.
— WP:CRANDO

All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Generally, Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works.
— WP:COPYOTHERS

— {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok so thats basically saying the cc license applies to the whole text/work ("imported text"), and it doesnt specify that any portion of text is excluded ("you may only import text"), so its pretty ambiguous in that way. i asked for that earlier, and you have someone on wikipedia that doesnt know, doesnt say anything, and just "blocked indefinitely" so... thats great, thats great that wikipedia works this way apparently where updating an article, and running into a 'copyright' seems to so many problems, thats really great............. Morefactswiki (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CC BY-SA license doesn't automatically apply to other sources outside of Wikipedia. It allows reuse of the content already on Wikipedia, not just bringing any and all content in. Again, generally, everything online is copyrighted unless it says specifically otherwise. I am specifically saying that even portions of text you find online are copyrighted. You will not find a reliable source that says otherwise. Just write in your own words and you'll have no issues with copyright in the first place. (And yes, plagiarism does lead to serious discussion, because plagiarism is a very serious problem.) — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable

that is crazy this person just blocked indefinitely

"editing (sitewide)"
"account creation disabled"

for no good reason, and for everyone here, that is really crazy. how are ppl even allowed to do that on wikipedia thats unbelievable

It was for a very good reason. As mentioned above, everything you write on Wikipedia needs to be in your own words. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you get 'blocked infinitely' for not knowing that??? like i just wanted to see it said somewhere. why cant ppl ask that. that's ridiculous. someone says you won't get charged for the surgery. anyone would want to see it written. im so confused someone just 'blocked infinitely' for this Morefactswiki (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably weren't blocked for not knowing about copyright, I would assume it was at least partially due to the way you insulted the intelligence of others while demanding a citation for simple information about how copyright works. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that nobody but you knew where to find? this is ridiculous

i didnt say anything before that point to cause that "blocked indefinitely" Morefactswiki (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you insulted multiple experienced Wikipedians just because you don’t quite understand how copyright works online. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 16:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Morefactswiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]