User talk:PinkSlippers

TwoShots30, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TwoShots30! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- TruthGuardians (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. I thought you would want to know that the user BilledMammal and user Harout72 accused you of being my sockpuppet and requested an investigation. Alternatively, they accused me of canvassing you. Now I know this is ridiculous, but you may want to reply to them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:TruthGuardians_at_the_Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums

General sanctions for Michael Jackson topic

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to Michael Jackson.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996 let this count for both you and PinkSlippers EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2023

Your edit to Bonanza (season 1) 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. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also refer to MOS:TVPLOT: Material copied verbatim from other sources can risk a breach of US copyright law, and a plot summary may not be copied from elsewhere unless its license is compatible with Wikipedia use. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Even after the above warning, you're persisting with edit summaries that are copyvio: [1]. Per WP:COPYPASTE, Superficial change of copyright-protected text is not enough. I would highly recommend that you cease with editing episode summaries until you are more familiar with the above Wikipedia policies, most importantly Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and MOS:TVPLOT. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not used the same text. Can you point me to the text you think violates copyright? IMDB cannot be used as a source as long as the text is different? Thanks PinkSlippers (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at several examples. Here's one. Your text in this edit [2]:

Meanwhile, Hoss learns that the bull has been taken by a young child who believes the Cartwrights intend to kill and consume his large bovine friend

Compared to imdb:

while Hoss discovers that the bull has been spirited away by a little boy who is convinced that the Cartwrights plan to kill and eat his big bovine friend

You're just changing words in the same phrase - a superficial change of existing (copyrighted) text.

Honestly, in reviewing your edits, it looks like the existing summaries are problematic to begin with, but that's not a reason to essentially do the same thing. That just takes an existing problem and makes it worse. I'm actually about to pull all of the episode summaries as copyvio, since a large number of them seem to have been simply copied from imdb. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many edits on wiki which are the same content as content in books, other websites but rephrased and thus not considered copyrighted. When it comes to episode summaries, why can't IDBM be used as source as long as the actual text is not the same? PinkSlippers (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many edits on wiki which are the same content as content in books, other websites but rephrased and thus not considered copyrighted.

That depends. When it's rephrased as shown in your edit above, it absolutely is a copyright violation. I've given you links to the guidelines and policies. Are you reading them? Please do. You cannot use what exists on wiki now as a justification of putting in something that clearly violates policy. If you're using a policy violation to justify additional policy violations, that's a fallacy of relative privation. If you can't write an original episode summary, then just don't write one at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why cant IMDB be used as a reliable source for episode summeries? PinkSlippers (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

First, imdb is user generated content, which makes it not reliable (see WP:IMDB and WP:CITEIMDB). But that's not really the issue here. It's not that you're using it as a source, but that you're copying the plot summary and making minimal word changes to it, which, as already pointed out, is a copyvio problem. Plot summaries must be worded in your own words - not restated from another source, per MOS:TVPLOT: A plot summary may not be copied from elsewhere unless its license is compatible with Wikipedia use. Also see WP:COPYPASTE (which I've previously noted): Superficial change of copyright-protected text is not enough. Wikipedia articles must be written in the author's own words. I find that I'm simply restating here what I've already pointed out, so read the linked policies and make sure you understand them because they very clearly answer your question. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The two sentences you brought up as examples do not only have minimal differences. They are clearly not the same sentence, the content is the same. If the content is factual and indeed part of the episode, why couldn't it be included here? PinkSlippers (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

They are clearly not the same sentence - Oh, yes, they clearly are. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

T PinkSlippers (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

They are the same content. But you can't objectively say they are the same words. Pharaphrasing sentences in articles and book is widely accepted editing method on wikipedia, I don't see why it would be different for episode summaries. PinkSlippers (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yours is not a paraphrase - it is a superficial change. And it's just one example of several that were essentially the same issue. If you're unable to see the copyright violations in it, then I would recommend that you avoid such editing until you are sure you understand the policy. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I advise you to check the definition of paraphrase.

"express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words".

In the meantime, Hoss finds out that a young child took the bull because he believed the Cartwrights wanted to eat him

would that be the same to you as

Meanwhile, Hoss learns that the bull was been taken by a young child who believes the Cartwrights intend to kill and consume his large bovine friend. PinkSlippers (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of Dr. Kildare episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Daly. 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) 05:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)