User talk:Heymisterscott

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Heymisterscott! Your additions to South Wilmington, Illinois have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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. Thank you. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 03:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nose have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nose was changed by Heymisterscott (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956832 on 2022-02-03T02:34:26+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nudity in religion. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --WikiLinuz {talk} 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not revert to edits which state the opposite view of the cited material. Please bother to read cited material. You know what it is called when someone states a view outside of a cited source? A POINT OF VIEW. You clearly did not have the slightest sense of what the cited material had said when you decided to smash that revert button back to stating an opinion based statement which was not shared by the cited article. So how about instead of attacking people for trying to ensure material reflects the cited articles, you either buzz off or actually read the articles cited. Reverting back to someone’s personal opinion which is the opposite view of the cited article is not appropriate. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. “Thank you” Heymisterscott (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Wracking. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Please use helpful edit summaries that do not make personal remarks about other editors Wracking ^talk! 04:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What is this referring to? Heymisterscott (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is referring to your edit summaries, such as Just….no. This article looks like it was written by a blindfolded ape [1] and Fixed absolutely horrendous grammar. Whoever wrote this should never ever edit again. [2]. See WP:SUMMARYNO. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would apologize, but I'm really not sorry.

Thanks Heymisterscott (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)