User talk:Plewi003
| This user is a student editor in State_University_of_New_York,_Plattsburgh/Communication_and_Culture_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Plewi003, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Copyright/plagiarism
[edit]Hello, I received a notification that you had posted material that closely paraphrased or took material verbatim from content that had previously been published elsewhere to your article. This is seen as a copyright issue and plagiarism, even if you were to include the original source as a citation. Always be careful when writing article content - a good way to avoid doing this is to take notes while reading and write your article from those notes.
Unless the material is explicitly marked as falling into the public domain or was released under a compatible Creative Commons license, it should be assumed that the content is copyrighted in a way that would prohibit it from being used verbatim elsewhere. It's always best to write things in your own words, as this can help prevent issues like this from arising. I would like for you to review the module on plagiarism and copyright, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- On a side note, it's fine to copy from Wikipedia as long as you attribute it in your edit summary where you took the material from. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Dacryphilia
[edit]Hi, I saw that you posted an entire abstract to your article. I did see where you marked it as a quote, however this still poses an issue of copyright since that's not something that we can claim as fair use on Wikipedia. Very large quotes are hard to justify, as we need to show that the statement cannot be written in our own words without losing something and the quote must be put into context to where the quote makes sense. However in this situation there wasn't really any build up to where the quote would make sense and the content would be something that can be rephrased into your own words since abstracts typically aren't going to lose anything if they're summarized.
However that said, there is an issue with you using a study. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results. The only thing that could be used in a study would be any literature reviews, where they cover prior studies or similarly themed content. So with the study you had, you could look to see if there were any literature reviews. You may also want to look at their citations to see if there are any that you could use for more sourcing - more on that in the next paragraph.
The article also needs more/better sources. EngYes does not appear to be a reliable source since this page gives off the impression that any given content in the site could be user submitted, which poses an issue of editorial oversight and verification. Basically, because anyone can submit stuff to the site, there's no true guarantee that things will be accurate. Even if the material looks to be accurate, we can't take that risk. To that end, Kinkly and the Fet Life encyclopedia also wouldn't be seen as really good sources because we can't guarantee if they've had proper editorial oversight and verification, nor that the persons who wrote them would be authorities on the topic. Google and Bing search results should generally be avoided since we can't guarantee that what they bring up would be seen as a reliable source - they're just not the strongest possible sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Dacryphilia.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Dacryphilia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
