Jump to content

User talk:Maternalistic Lioness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maternalistic Lioness (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 24 January 2019 (→Writing about crime can be difficult: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Tots & little ones matter!, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  — fr ❄ 10:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45335980. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45335980. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your assertion in the edit summary that you want to "restore censored article" this deletion request is solely about your failure to observe copyright, not about censorship. A score of 75% on the copyright detector shows you're copying the text. Cabayi (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that the article "appears to be a direct copy" is simply incorrect. You used the wrong procedure under WP:G12 to respond to some reused phrases in the article that may have been acceptable under WP:LIMITED. The criterion WP:G12 is absolutely crystal clear that "for equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as ... close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}" and not speedily deleted. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Cabayi that didn't seem very civil.. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Creating BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures has been speedy deleted twice now as unambiguous copyright infringement by two different admins. If you don't think it was warranted then I suggest that you take it up with the admins, user: RHaworth and user:Anthony Appleyard . Don't make personal attacks on the editor who requested the speedy deletion. Meters (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Berkhamsted child rape network, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.herts.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Paedophile_ring_jailed_for_online_abuse_of_children_1355 and other cited sources, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted User:Tots & little ones matter!/BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures. Re-posting content that had already been twice deleted as copyvio is really the height of unwisdom, and shows a worrying disregard for our policies and practices (please see in particular our copyright policy and our WP:neutrality policy, both of which are relevant to you). Please be aware that if you again copy into Wikipedia copyrighted content from external sources, you may be suspended from editing without any further warning. So ... please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not simply repost the content, as you are alleging, I reworded almost every part that was highlighed by copyvios, except direct quotes by individuals in quotation marks. Far from showing "a worrying disregard for our policies and practices", I posted the reworded content as a temporary draft on a user page, not an article, and deliberately invited scrutiny from other editors with the aim of resolving any remaining copyright issues first before making it an article. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy and neutral point of view

Hello. Given some of your editing behavior, certain comments in edit summaries, and your username, please review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on Advocacy, Neutrality, and Biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, even for noble ideas. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted child rape network moved to draftspace

There are too many issues to deal with in mainspace; a rewrite is probably a good idea, but, per WP:NODEADLINE, draft- or user-space is the best place.

Writing about crime can be difficult

As Wikipedians striving for greater coverage and inclusion on topics relating to crime, we face unique challenges:

  • The risk of being deplatformed by those who find our information "triggering". This insidious attitude is extremely reprehensible because it silences those whose stories desperately need to be heard.
  • A very real threat of retaliation from criminals who don't want to be written about.
  • A negative stigma, owing to the odious subject matter we are driven to cover. This stigma is of course unfair – many of the most highly regarded careers involve a niche interest in an unpleasant problem – the doctors and nurses treating diseases we would rather not think about, the police officers arresting the perpetrators of henious crimes, etc. By giving up our free time, we are taking major problems humanity face seriously. A greater knowledge and awareness of criminal matters is often of benefit to society.

These challenges are serious and they are real. I wish some Wikipedia editors would be more understanding.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maternalistic_Lioness&oldid=879889247"