User talk:Jdee4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jdee4, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to All-Party Parliamentary Group for Choice at the End of Life have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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 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 the 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 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 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.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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) 18:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve All-Party Parliamentary Group for Choice at the End of Life

Hi, I'm Rosguill. Jdee4, thanks for creating All-Party Parliamentary Group for Choice at the End of Life!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article could use more sources that aren't affiliated with the subject: currently the only completely unaffiliated source is the express.co.uk article, and even that one is essentially just an interview with Nick Boles and is thus arguably not neutral in its coverage. Providing more 3rd party sources will both improve the article by expanding its content, and protect it from being taken down for not meeting notability guidelines

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Rosguill^talk 06:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Noel Conway (Lecturer)

Hello, Jdee4,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Noel Conway (Lecturer) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Conway (Lecturer) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Rosguill^talk 19:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noel Conway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Euthanasia in Australia— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 17:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Windows Vista reverted edit

I appreciate that you reverted my contribution to the Windows Vista article, even though I do not agree with the reversion. I wonder why you reverted the edit. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC))

I reverted the edit to highlight the issue of incorrectly marking edits as minor to you since you seem to have a history of it. Go ahead and re-do the edit but don't mark it as minor. Jdee4 (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why that would be an issue to you. Nevertheless, if I seem to have a history of erring, you would be better to contact me on my talk page to inform me of any issues instead of reverting my contribution. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC))

Archive 1