User talk:108.201.29.108

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello 108.201.29.108, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Pornography addiction have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or 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 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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Article Separation

This entry should be seperated distinctly from the Irish folk song "steal away" by Celtic Thunder, etc.

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) 21:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Responding to your message on my talk page for more information on the copyright violation. Your addition to the article Pornography addiction was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Content was copied from this copyright journal article. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Franks v. Delaware. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

"Citation of racial overtones incorrect"

Hello, I saw your argument about the Oxford interpretation of this term and I felt I should address some of your statements. No. 1: The U.S. Government will not give credence to Oxford over "all other" dictionaries and claims that it will are nothing more than either marketing or chauvinism. US Supreme Court opinions, for example, will just as frequently cite early versions of Webster's or Black's or other dictionaries as the author feels they are relevant to the case at hand. No. 2: There is no policy here that supports any dictionary being controlling over any other and any proposal for such a policy would almost certainly be rejected. No. 3:Claiming that "the English language is the English language" is a strangely short-sighted considering the complexities and varieties of English, some of which are so mutually unintelligible as to nearly be different languages, as well as contrary to the accepted standards of English usage on this site. No. 4: Opinions on what articles should say are not of much significance, since Wikipedia runs on sources and consensus; you would need to create a new consensus in order to change a well-sourced statement. I doubt simply pointing to Oxford and announcing that all Americans are wrong in the usage of the word would go very far in creating such a consensus. I hope this helps explain some of the comments to your edit requests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Your arguments are deeply flawed. First, You tend to forget that Black's dictionary is a law dictionary,as opposed to a lexicon dictionary, and thus it is inapplicable here. The courts actually tend to AVOID webster's whenever possible, particularly when tracing the orgins of intended meaning.

Secondly, As to your argument against the notion that the "English language is the English language", definitions of terms have NOTHING to do with "dialects" of English. Dialects concern themselves mainly with a variety in terms of pronunciation, not in terms of definition, though some "Terms" may tend to be used only in certain dialects. Therefore, your argument there is woefully misleading.

Thirdly, you failed to address the issue of at least a mention of the alternative in light of the neutrality / encyclopedic tone policies. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has any relevance in the face this fact:no policy on this site supports the assertion that one dictionary should "control" anything. If you want to try creating a policy, you are free to propose it at The Village Pump. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eggshorn, If you have read the article's talk page, my main point is really not that one dictionary should necessarily control over another, However, in this case, the alternative dictionary definition should be mentioned because of the fact that Wikipedia DOES have a policy concerning neutrality and encyclopedic tone, which are violated when the article is allowed to reflect exclusively a "racist" connotation to a term, when alternative definitions of the term provide for a possible "non-racist" usage. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. An edit that you recently made to Butthole Surfers seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Rob van vee 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Response

A few things; First, For your future information, If you have a problem with one of my edits you can come and talk to me about it FIRST (i.e. make an active effort to achieve CONSENSUS), BEFORE proceeding to modify my edits in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, the modifications can and will be perceived by me as abusive / vandalism, and therefore be subject to immediate reversion under the applicable policy guidelines.

Secondly, as to the article in question, the Particular modifications were not a "test" of anything , but expansion of material needed to bring the article into full compliance as to libel/slander standards, and also to remain both neutral, factual, and within an encyclopedic tone. Therefore, I will give you a chance to revert, before I unilaterally revert for abuse, and you should make it necessary, I will request a protected page or other necessary precautions be put in place to prevent you from editing the page, in order to prevent actions I perceive as reversion abuse/vandalism. Thirdly, on a personal note, I would appreciate it if you'd kindly stay off my edits from now on, as your reversion of an edit without first talking to the editor is taken to be quite rude and is therefore inappropriate conduct, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you.

See WP:SUBJECTIVE . 108.201.29.108 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's an idea while we're at it: let's mention on the article page that the Beatles were not actually beetles or perhaps that Queens of the Stone Age are not actually queens, or from the stone age... Rob van vee 07:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Urinary catheterization. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wp:consensus? No. You need to wp:cite a wp:RSMED for your edit. See WP:DN for dispute process, but first you need to cite an RSMED source.
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Urinary catheterization, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you

See wp:BURDEN. I nor others want to go gallivanting across the web to cite something that you should be familiar with and do yourself. See wp:verifiability first paragraph: Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. It's not verifiable, so I removed it. Jim1138 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information

This edit was not vandalism. Incorrectly applying that label, besides being nonproductive, can be construed as disruptive and jeopardize one's editing privilege. Additionally, not agreeing with a policy or guideline does not give one license to edit, or edit war, without regard for those guidelines or policies. There are venues where those guidelines and policies may be discussed. However, reading your take on the guideline in question (WP:BURDEN) I would think you will meet with little success as that guideline does have consensus. Tiderolls 21:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from message on my talk page: If you don't think WP:BURDEN and WP:verifiability apply to you and I am vandalizing your edits, I would suggest you open a ticket on WP:ANI. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal lubricant article

See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (108.201.29.108) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! House1090 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mario Lopez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why is the n swear word

Youtube 51.52.238.67 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.