User talk:Raoul.Escobar

October 2020

Your edit to The Rolling Stones has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Raoul.Escobar, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Mick Jagger 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. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• 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.
• 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. warmly, ezlev. talk 07:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

I’m not sure I understand your argument exactly.

My argument was that we don’t need to explain that the PWR/UP on the albums cover has a lightning bolt symbol for the slash because it’s already brutally obvious to see and understand, and people can see it for themselves with the album art.

Your response, while reverting, was “so what?”.

What does that even mean? What is your argument? Saying “so what” sounds like you understand my argument that it’s so obvious that it doesn’t need to be written out, but you’re adding it anyways? What? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument may be right: the lightning bolt symbol may be "brutally obvious to see and understand", "people [may] see it for themselves with the album art", but only if they buy the album... for the Wikipedia album cover photo is too tiny to read... thus the lightning bolt symbol on the album cover too difficult to read. Besides, the opposite argument is (also) right: there's no (other) particular reason (than the one you provide) not to add the explanation that the PWR/UP on the album cover has a lightning bolt symbol. QED. Raoul.Escobar (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My argument is that it has no purpose or benefit. That’s more than enough of a reason to not have it, but if you need more reasons, it also awkward to read pointless observations in the opening sentences of the article. It doesn’t read well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The Sun is a deprecated source and should not be used in Wikipedia. Please review WP:THESUN and WP:DEPS. David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)