User talk:CherryOolong

August 2023[edit]

One of your recent edits 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. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is my first edit to Wikipedia. I sourced the image. On the NY Post website it says "all rights reserved," which doesn't mean anything legally. CherryOolong (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave credit to the photographer, which is not listed on the NY post website. I uploaded the image to Wikimedia, unlike the previous image. CherryOolong (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"All rights reserved" means exactly that, the author asserts copyright. It's copyrighted, and you can't use it on Wikipedia, which only uses free content. Don';t ever upload images you've found on the Internet to Wikipedia or Commons. You will be blocked if you do that again. Don't guess at Wikipedia image policy. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section "Obsolescence," it says that "The phrase continues to hold popular currency in spite of having no legal effect."

Are you going to edit that too? CherryOolong (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

© 2023 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved is about as obviously copyrighted as you can get. Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons license, which governs how the rights are released under many circumstances. Most of Wikipedia may be freely re-used with attribution (one of those "rights"). That means that you can't scrape someone else's work and launder it through a Wikipedia or Wikimedia site. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now. Thank you for explaining. So I have to take a picture of Maria Oswald myself? CherryOolong (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes, you can freely license your own work to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I've done that with thousands of images I've created. With pictures of people, it's not as easy, as they retain personality rights that can be compromised by poorly-considered publication on Wikipedia.

Anything re-used on WIkipedia is required to have been explicitly released under a Wikipedia-compatible free-use license. There are exceptions based on fair use, which have a host of additional requirements, so it's always best to only use content that is either explicitly released under a compatible Creative Commons license (there are some that are incompatible) or are explicitly public domain, which has extremely narrow definitions and allowable fors of use.© 2023 NYP Holdings, Inc. is an explicit assertion of copyright. Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the "all rights reserved," yes, a copyright lawyer might turn up their nose at that assertion. Here in Wikimedia projects, that's enough to declare that somebody is reserving some kind of rights somewhere in the world (remember that Wikimedia is a global enterprise, and copyright law is different in different places), so that's enough reason to reject anything published with that statement, on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that a copyright lawyer has no say on Wikipedia? CherryOolong (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shoot the messenger. I appreciate your input. Please don't ban me. CherryOolong (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a copyright lawyer understands the nuances of freely-licensed content. Wikipedia, as a private website, is entitled to set its own terms for acceptance of content, regardless of what any third party may assert. Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you! 💖 CherryOolong (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Hunter Biden, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I apologize. I'm still new to Wikipedia. That snippet had some unconfirmed sources, so I was just following what the red box says at the top of the Edit page entitled, "Notice about sources"

It states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous."

Do you think this applies in this case?

It also states: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources." CherryOolong (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am literally citing his book... why does my contribution keep getting removed? It is a reliable source. CherryOolong (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi CherryOolong! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and information! I will definitely refer to this in the future. :) CherryOolong (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Firefangledfeathers. I will definitely reference this in the future. CherryOolong (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]