User talk:Aferditaa

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Serbianisation, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Diannaa, thank you for the warm welcome and for the insightful information about copyrights! I know I cited sources, plus I'm not sure which section has been copied extensively - could you please clarify and provide the part where I violated copyright rules? It would be helpful so that if it is in fact a violation, I don't do it again in the future! Thank you Aferditaa (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aferditaa, did you really intend to leave that templated message on Diannaa's talk page? You should read what that template says again; it makes you sound much less reasonable than you sound here. Ignoring the template (with its 100% silly suggestion that she made a test edit), you seem to be implying (here, and there) that when you add material that is partially copied from somewhere else, and partially not, it is Diannaa's responsibility to tell you which part is which. But this is easy to do yourself. The part that violates copyright is the part you directly copied from the source, and then tweaked every 5th word. You would know better than she which part that was. But in this case it appears to be all of it. The entire thing you added is close paraphrasing. In some places you might have made more of an effort, and in some places less, but it's all close paraphrasing. Please read that link, and then follow the recommendations there. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Floquenbeam, thanks for your input, though I respectfully disagree with the idea that it violated copywrite infringement. Unfortunately, I can't prove this, as not only has the contribution been deleted, but the diff has been removed from the record as well. Considering it isn't accessible anymore, I'm not sure how you're able to claim that I "directly copied from the source, and then tweaked every 5th word." I'm pretty new to wikipedia so I admit that I may have made a mistake, but I was asking about specifically where. Can you show me? Nevertheless, I'll try to add the information again, and be much more careful this time. I'll take a look at the copywrite rules in more detail as well.

Regarding the templated warning that I left on @Diannaa's page, I posted it for 3 main reasons:

1. When looking what has been removed, I noticed that an unrelated contribution - an image and caption of of stefan dusan's code of laws highly relevant to the section it was inserted in - was removed without cause or explanation. There was also no attempt to address any of the issues on the talk page.

2. I responded to dianaa (above) asking for clarification (since she made the accusation) in an attempt to address the conflict and come to a resolution, but then the revision history of my contributions was deleted from the public record and the diffs are no longer accessible.

3. I looked up how to settle/respond to these types of disputes appropriately; official wikipedia guidelines instruct you to address the issue directly, and give a warning. I chose the level 2 deletion warning because it is the most accurate - it doesn't assume negative intentions but also acknowledges it was not accidental. Regarding the bit about suggesting that a test edit was made, I don't see how that's relevant but its a default message meant to be informative - it says if that was the intended case, not that it was indeed the case. I fugred wikipedia included it for a reason so it was left there.

Should this user continue to delete my work and revision history after I've submitted information that is in accordance with the wikipedia rules on citation and copywrite law, I will continue to abide by the wiki guidelines on settling these disuputes/reporting these instances appropriately. Thank you! Aferditaa (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why a new user wouldn't know that they can't close paraphrase. But I don't understand how a new user could say that it's possible they did that accidentally, but don't remember, but in any case it surely must be someone else's fault that the material was deleted.

Sorry, but there is simply no way that you created that text without copying it from that source, and then slightly changing the wording of every sentence by a few words. That's close paraphrasing, and it's essentially impossible to do without knowing that's what you're doing. Every sentence had a very similarly worded corresponding sentence in the source. In the same order.

I can see the deleted text because I'm an admin. I can't show you what part of the text was OK and what part wasn't, because it was the entire thing. It is not reasonable to think that it is someone else's responsibility to go thru your edit, and make sure they don't delete the 5% that was not a copyright violation. It is your responsibility to not create the copyright violation. In any case, it would make no sense to leave a context-free image in a section where all the text was removed.

Blatant copyright violations are not a topic for talk page discussion, they are simply removed. The copyright violations are removed from the history as well, so that no one can just revert to that previous version. I would hope that whatever official Wikipedia guidelines you are looking at don't say you should leave warning templates for people who did the right thing. If Diannaa continues to remove copyright violations, she will be thanked, not get in trouble. If the wording of the warning template doesn't apply, then don't use it.

I will never understand why so many new users, when faced with a very kind and helpful note about a mistake they made, will take the position that they understand Wikipedia policy better than people who have been here 15 years. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Floquenbeam You've again failed to show me even one segment of what I wrote that was copy and pasted, plus you've ignored the other unjust deletion that I mentioned (see bullet point 1 from my message above).

If your comment was meant to be so very kind and helpful, you'd have shown me an example by now - even just 1- like I asked for, where I said I'd like to avoid such a mistake in the future. And if the entirety of the 4 separate contributions that I made violated copywrite rules, one would be able to provide an example. At the very least, for the sake of being constructive and helpful.

BTW, if someone accuses someone, the accuser usually provides facts and examples to prove the accusation. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the person defending. This isn't Sharia law. You say it's ridiculous for someone to go through my edit to prove their point - but shouldn't they have gone through my edit to make the accusation in the first place? This logic isn't making much sense here.

P.s, it's unfortunate that after 15 years of being active on here, and coming from a position of power, the very first comment you make to a new user is regarding their personal attributions rather than the content itself (using words like "you sound", calling me "unreasonable," or "silly" even. I do not need opinions from you about how I look or sound, as they have entirely no value. Please refrain from making comments like those; I would recommend taking another glance at the code of conduct here before posting a comment.

I look forward to making more contributions and I welcome any and all constructive criticism. Thank you! Aferditaa (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did address that specific point already; as I already said, it would make no sense to leave a context-free image that you inserted into a section that was 100% copyright violation. And it is not reasonable to expect someone else to save the 5% of your edit that wasn't a copyvio. I can believe you didn't originally know close paraphrasing was wrong, but it is unethical gamesmanship to know now that you did something wrong, but still demand I spend time proving you did something you know you did. Come on. The entire paragraph you added on "Nemanjić Dynasty" was copied from the bottom paragraph of page 8 of the Vickers reference you used. Every single sentence you added, in the same order. With small tweaks to some of the wording. Half of the paragraph "Conversion under Stefan Dušan" was taken from the same place, and the other half was written by a previous editor and you just moved their text to your section (that part is OK). I've restored the part someone else wrote. If you want to add the image to the current article, feel free. I'm not being aggressive because you made a mistake. I'm being aggressive because you're behaving dishonestly in response to Diannaa's message. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, thank you!

And again, please stop with the offensive language/comments 😢 Aferditaa (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aferditaa. Diannaa here. One of your edits was flagged by our copyright detection system, and since there's a copy of the source document here I was able to do a comparison using Earwig's tool. Below is an example of what I found. (There was further overlap in the following paragraph as well.) Overlapping content is shown in Bold.

Source document:

In Kosovo, especially in its eastern part, most Albanians were gradually assimilated into the Eastern Orthodox faith by numerous methods, including the baptism of infants with Serbian names and the conducting of all religious ceremonies such as marriages in the Serbian language. In Montenegro entire tribes such as the Kuc, Bjellopavliq, Palabardha, Piprraj and Vasovic were assimilated; those who resisted assimilation retreated into the hills of what is now northern Albania.

Your addition:

In Kosovo, particularly in its eastern regions, a significant number of Albanians were gradually assimilated into the Eastern Orthodox faith. This assimilation was facilitated by various methods, including the baptism of infants with Serbian names and the exclusive use of the Serbian language for religious ceremonies such as marriages. In Montenegro, entire tribes, including the Kuči, Bjelopavlići, Piperi, and Vasojevići, underwent similar assimilation processes. Those who resisted these efforts often retreated to the hills of present-day northern Albania.

So, you presented the same ideas in the same order using almost identical wording. That's a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you copy and pasted from was my very first contribution regarding the matter, and my subsequent 3 or 4 edits were done to reword and rephrase/move stuff around. nevertheless i will try to add information in in a more careful manner. thanks Aferditaa (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Khirurg (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, any reason why you deleted the warning on your talk page? Your behavior is exactly why the pages are marked as contentious Aferditaa (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Brikcity per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brikcity. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993 you're so obviously a sock 🤣 talk to you soon ;) Aferditaa (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Brikcity/Aferditaa's comment is unfortunate. If this is how editors blocked for sockpuppetry behave especially after their block, by using the talk pages to accuse others for sockpuppetry, it only complicates their position and hampers their whatsoever privileges, further. In this case, a block for misusing their own talk pages should be considered. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]