User talk:PCC556

Early history of video games

Hi, it may not have been your intent, but edits such as deleting most of the lead of an article or adding content with the incorrect summary "fixed typos" are considered vandalism, and continuing to do so may result in you being blocked from editing.

It appears that you want to expand the presence of the Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device on that article, however, note that your additions appear to be both duplicative of what's already in the article as well as copied directly from the CTRAD article. Please pay attention to what is already there, and also consider that the Early history of video games article is a summary of over 20 years of video game history, so there's a limit to how much space we should give to any one element. --Pres N 15:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm Subariba. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Subariba (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, i clicked edit accidently before i could add the summary. Now i've removed the content again but i've explained and justified the changes PCC556 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Squinch

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Squinch, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caravel

Hi, I think you need to take a look at your recent edits on Caravel and consider how they fit with the general principles of editing in Wikipedia.

(1) You have removed two authoritative sources from the paragraph. There is no "competition" here between competing sources, so removing two in making your edits is not really acceptable. If there are differing opinions out there, it is often appropriate to explain what they are.

(2) The source you have added is a dissertation. Have you considered how this fits with the guidance on using a dissertation that you can find at WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Is this thesis cited by anyone else? You might find reading all of WP:RS helpful.

(3) The second sentence of your added text really does need a rewrite. I suggest it would be better if it were broken down into, perhaps, three sentences. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque

Don't add great slabs of quote without explaining that they are quotes! Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Arabesque. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 17:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pankou (fastening)

Please see the comments at Talk:Frog (fastening), re your recent major change to that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the links to european frog clousures becayse they are not actually Chinese in origin: all historical Chinese pankou used thin cording or wires covered by a smooth fabric, not textured braids and their patterns are densely stitched/knotted together instead of the loose, dramatic shape frog closures have. European frogs are made in Soutache embroidery which already appears in the 1556 German textile pattern book "New Modelbüch allen Nägerin u. Sydenstickern" and were later popularized by hungarians. This article by chinese fashion historian explains this really well:https://audreydoeskaren.tumblr.com/post/650175047438319616/some-thoughts-on-chinese-pankoufrog PCC556 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just repeated the same edit, with the same problem. Please see WP:EDITWAR.

You are probably right about the content (it's not a topic I'm particularly familiar with), but this edit still has the same problem: you've taken all the content about frogs out of the article on frogs. If you want an article at pankou, then great, make one. Maybe even the one you've done. But you can't leave it like that: we need to keep some European content left under frog, not just a redirect to a now-unrelated article which you're saying yourself isn't relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello PCC556! Your additions to Goldwork (embroidery) 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, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ctesibius

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Odo of Metz.
Message added 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lead

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Odo of Metz.
Message added 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest reversion of sourced material

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Justacorps, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You stated without evidence "they deleted the most common accepted origin of justacourps that was backed with multiple references" in entirely reverting my edit. There were multiple improvements made to the article which you undid, not just the alleged origin of the garments.

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Justacorps § "Most common accepted origin" and Possible copyright violation. Please respond there before restoring your changes again. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revisions consistently disregard the extensively documented origins of the justacorps within the European military, widely accepted by fashion historians and which i backed with multiple sources written by fashion historians. Instead, you favor speculative origins rooted in various other cultures, drawing on fringe sources unrelated to fashion history that lack the expertise of fashion historians. Consequently, the edited article leaves readers with no clear understanding of the justacorps' origins, as it simultaneously attributes its derivation to Persian, Polish, and Indian garments contradicting itself PCC556 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope you do not mind, but I have moved your reply to me to the relevant section, here, instead of under the Odo of Metz section.

I do not think my restorations of earlier versions of the article (with both content and WP: MOS improvements) does "disregard the origin" of the garment within the French military. (I even added a section for this, "Military attire", which I had hoped would be expanded.)

There is no claim, either in earlier versions of the article nor in my edits, that "attributes its derivation to Persian,^[a] Polish, and Indian garments" as you assert. Readers are presented with the worldwide context of the evolution of the garment, which recent changes also present in a more explicit way. All claims were sourced.

It is not only me who has questioned your changes, as I detail at Talk:Justacorps § Add balancing material, don't delete (and at Seeming copyvio & Most common accepted origin). I seem to be talking to myself. The posts there are open and waiting for you to engage with, for us to reach a consensus on the content of the article, as WP policy requires. Although until now you have not been willing to talk with me, except through edit summaries, I have attempted to take your expressed concerns into account in my edits. On the other hand, you have reverted all improvements: deleting newly added sources, source links and expansions, and formatting and style upgrades.

Most importantly, I removed the copyright violation that you have added several times. This must be rectified straight away. The close paraphrasing to which you have now altered it does not change that (please read WP:CLOP and the section above posted by @Diannaa: in May). If you are unable or unwilling to remove the copyright violation, I will take the action myself by tomorrow. If you keep returning it, without deigning to participate in a discussion, I will feel justified in asking for assistance in the appropriate WP forum. I am willing to discuss the issues in the article. Will you please join me, rather than deciding unilaterally what the "correct" version is, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ There is one sourced and attributed (Mokberi's view) mention of a specific Persian influence. That is a long-standing claim, which your edits have always retained.

Close paraphrasing

Your addition to Justacorps has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/1998-n55-cd1043339/7918ac/, a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases, especially if they are not attributed to their source, may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you wish to discuss concerns you have with the article, please do not respond here, but post at Talk:Justacorps as that is where we should continue any content discussion. I would be more than happy to talk it over with you. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] There is one sourced and attributed (Mokberi's view) mention of a specific Persian influence. That is a long-standing claim, which your edits have always retained.

[a]