| Revision as of 18:41, 14 June 2009 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,806 edits →Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence: comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:39, 15 June 2009 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,806 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Ochre. using TWNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::Iam sorry, I don´t remember. ] (]) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | ::Iam sorry, I don´t remember. ] (]) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::That's not good. It's a legal requirement to do the attribution, as you are using other people's work. Please don't do that again. You can copy and paste but you must put a link in the edit summary. And just because something is in one article doesn't mean it's ok, there is a lot of bad stuff around. Articles such as these should use academic sources rather than websites unless you find a particularly good website. And websites such as AbsoluteAstronomy take their stuff from Misplaced Pages and you can't use them. You also need to understand that where there is significant disagreement about something that must be made clear. You misrepresented what our ] article says. The name may be related to the word for red, but that's not what you wrote, and the original source for the 'red' bit in any case is Josephus, hardly a good source for an etymology. A lot of people think that 'religion', worshipping deities, is relatively recent - certainly not 30,000 years old - that early man didn't distinguish between the secular and the sacred the way we do. We don't even know for sure what the ] are, and our articles should not suggest we do. ] (]) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | :::That's not good. It's a legal requirement to do the attribution, as you are using other people's work. Please don't do that again. You can copy and paste but you must put a link in the edit summary. And just because something is in one article doesn't mean it's ok, there is a lot of bad stuff around. Articles such as these should use academic sources rather than websites unless you find a particularly good website. And websites such as AbsoluteAstronomy take their stuff from Misplaced Pages and you can't use them. You also need to understand that where there is significant disagreement about something that must be made clear. You misrepresented what our ] article says. The name may be related to the word for red, but that's not what you wrote, and the original source for the 'red' bit in any case is Josephus, hardly a good source for an etymology. A lot of people think that 'religion', worshipping deities, is relatively recent - certainly not 30,000 years old - that early man didn't distinguish between the secular and the sacred the way we do. We don't even know for sure what the ] are, and our articles should not suggest we do. ] (]) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == June 2009 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Ochre|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:39, 15 June 2009
Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence
You must answer this question. There appears to be a breach of the GFDL licence and if you aren't going to explain it then you can't be allowed to continue editing. This is a legal issue, not a content dispute. Please show that you are genuinely interested in working with other editors to edit the English Misplaced Pages by responding.
It looks as though this is in part copy and paste from another article. There are fact tags and different forms of citation which I am sure are not yours. Where did this come from? It is breaking our GFDL licence. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Iam sorry, I don´t remember. Jackiestud (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not good. It's a legal requirement to do the attribution, as you are using other people's work. Please don't do that again. You can copy and paste but you must put a link in the edit summary. And just because something is in one article doesn't mean it's ok, there is a lot of bad stuff around. Articles such as these should use academic sources rather than websites unless you find a particularly good website. And websites such as AbsoluteAstronomy take their stuff from Misplaced Pages and you can't use them. You also need to understand that where there is significant disagreement about something that must be made clear. You misrepresented what our Adam article says. The name may be related to the word for red, but that's not what you wrote, and the original source for the 'red' bit in any case is Josephus, hardly a good source for an etymology. A lot of people think that 'religion', worshipping deities, is relatively recent - certainly not 30,000 years old - that early man didn't distinguish between the secular and the sacred the way we do. We don't even know for sure what the Venus figurines are, and our articles should not suggest we do. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Iam sorry, I don´t remember. Jackiestud (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ochre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)