Fromehermes
Welcome!
edit
|
February 2022
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cabomba has been reverted.
Your edit here to Cabomba was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byU8ySn6eHk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Echinodorus have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Echinodorus was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCQycQoZ4i8) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Fromehermes! Your additions to Lagenandra 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. DanCherek (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation at Echinodorus grisebachii
edit
Your edit to Echinodorus grisebachii 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. I have also removed copyright text that you added to over a dozen articles. Please do not copy text from other websites. DanCherek (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Reply
editThe violations were not intentional as I misunderstood "fair usage" but hopefully all correctd now. Several of the entries quote my own articles that I personally wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromehermes (talk • contribs)
- Hallo Ed, dankjewel voor je bijdragen, aquariumplanten zijn een beetje een stiefkindje op WP. That you wrote an article yourself does not necessarily mean that you also own the copyright, it could be that the publisher does. You will also have noticed that there's a steep learning curve in editing WP. Don't let that discourage you, I assure you that it's worth the effort. The "welcome template" posted on top of this page has a lot of links to helpful pages on our policies and guidelines. Besides those on copyright, the most important ones are those on verifiability and reliable sources. Hope this helps! Also, don't hesitate to ask for help, either from single editors like me or from the different WikiProjects and noticeboards. As we say here: Happy editing! Prettig weekend! --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Cryptocoryne parva has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Rusalkii (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)February 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)- Fromehermes, you've been pointed to our copyright policy a few times, and yet I find you still violating copyright. Please read those policies more carefully, and perhaps practice off-Wikipedia. In addition, what you did on Vriesea bleheri would have had to be reverted anyway, since the writing/formatting were not correct. Pinging DanCherek, Randykitty. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Violation of oCpyright
edit
Fromehermes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you had read my Talk page and my conversation with my mentor DanCherek. I apolgised and explained that I misunderstood how Wiki regards "fair usage". Once having been explained to me, I have changed every single instance and been very careful to frame all new edits and creations in my own words. Therefore I accept the rebuke but appeal against the decision Fromehermes (talk)
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No, you just did it again, and besides, all the recent edits that I looked at were poorly formatted and cited unreliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Advice
editEd, accept the block and use the time off to familiarize yourself with WP's policies, guidelines, and formatting. Have a look at your contributions and see how many are marked "reverted". That means that other editors had to waste their valuable time to clean up after you (and it looks like those not tagged will soon be reverted, too. This is a waste of time for all involved. Please do what I suggested, we can use someone with your knowledge and I know that you're able to learn all you need to become a valuable contributor here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- PS: downloading an image from the Internet and then uploading it at Commons is not "own work", but copyvio. And while fair use (for magazine or book covers, for example) is allowed on WP, it is not allowed on Commons. I found the two photos that you uploaded elsewhere on the web and therefore had to nominate them for speedy deletion (they've since been deleted). --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Reply
editWe are fundamentally at odds on this. I disagree with all of your observations, so will call it a day, as I am obvously only one user/editor. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromehermes (talk • contribs)
- Ed, I'm mystified. Copyright is a legal thing and WP has to adhere to the law or we would get shut down. As our servers are located in the US, we have to follow US copyright law. Can you explain what makes you think we are wrong about this? The Wikimedia Foundation employs several lawyers, so I trust that their interpretation of the law is correct. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Reply #2
editThanks. I can remember when Wiki first started and it was so much fun. We thought we were building the Peoples encyclopedia. We knew it wasnt always entirely accurate but we used our intelligence to decide. Firstly the image I used of Helianthium tenellum was used under the understaning from the web site that as far as they were concerned it was copyright free and they would be pleased to contribute. You criticied my formatting : perhaps a bit subjective but everyone I showed my edits to (also aquaria enthusiasts) all said they preferred distinct sections so they could jump straight to what hey needed to now, eg. the distibution nd habitat, or cultivation - rather than have to read extraneous information. Lastly the same people liked the links to extenal sites by enthusiasts who had actually grown these plants. Having experience for over 30 years I carefully chose sites that reinorced my own experieces, but as I quite agre, needed to put in my own words but with a verification. The sites I used as verification had either grown or sold the plants concerned and were reliable and useful to people who wanted to identify or grow such plants. These re not opinions but people with real experience. I understand the need to avoid disinformation but plant enthusiasts are basically looking for identification and cultivation information (and in some cases 'weed' status). If you confine verification to scientific studies, I believe you have gone away from the original purpose of wik. Just my opinion of course. It is your encyclopedia and Im not trying to change anyones mind. I just wanted to add some useful information in areas I know well, but this seems like too much hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromehermes (talk • contribs)
- I understand your surprise on how things have changed since the early days. Compare it to the Wild West: early on it was quite lawless, there was a gold rush and a land rush, but by now it's as regulated as any other place. So also with WP. We have learned that copyright legislation is a serious thing and that it most certainly also applies to us. We have also learned that there are a lot of "sources" on the Internet that are unreliable, so we had to tighten our rules about what is a so-called "reliable source". Scientific articles are good, especially reviews (because we prefer secondary sources). But those are by no means the only admissible sources. For aquarium plants, I think that established magazines (like DATZ or Het Aquarium) are acceptable sources (even if they are not online, print sources are completely acceptable). A great source is AquaPlanta (sources don't need to be in English). Personal websites are rarely acceptable, but there are exceptions. I would, for example, absolutely accept Jan Bastmeijer's "Crypt Pages". (They are not maintained any more and may disappear at some point, but they must be on the Internet Archive). Personal web sites are acceptable if they are maintained by a recognized expert. Jan has published extensively and even described some new species, so his site is a great resource for Cryptos and Lagenandra species.
- As for formatting, I don't think that this was a criticism of using sections. But sections have to be formatted in a specific way. To avoid WP becoming a mishmash of styles, we have a manual of style.
- You're right about things having become very different, but WP has evolved too from the free-wheeling site that it was early on to a very serious encyclopedia. Baby has grown up! Initially this will be tough, but WP is full of helpful people and once you are more familiar with how things go here, things will become easier and I assure you: very rewarding. Don't give up! --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)