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 TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 26 July 2019 (Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (TW)). 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. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that's bollocks and you know it is.
I was going to make the point that there are categories full of material on sex crimes and child abuse, Category:Child sexual abuse in England and Category:Rape in England among others, and a navigation template to link them together on-screen {{Child sexual abuse in the UK}}. But you know that already - you've incorporated them into your new draft, Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp.
The problem is imho that you're pursuing an agenda in which building an encyclopedia is only a tangential side effect. Your conflict of interest blinds you to the problems with your writing whether it's the copyright violations or, in your latest draft, the urge to bold the names of the perpetrators (cf. Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal#October 2018) and the lengths of their sentences.
Once you start to approach your writing as contributing to an encyclopedia, rather than exploiting Wikipedia as a platform to pursue greater justice for the victims of child abuse, you'll find your progress much easier. If you think that you're the first person to raise these issues, and expect that Wikipedia has been waiting for you to wake it to the issues and will change its function to suit your desires you will be bitterly disappointed. It's an encyclopedia, no more, no less. Please, take the time to read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi,
Your attitude proves my point.
In your explanation for deleting my article on the BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures, you gave false information leading me to believe your decision to delete the material was incorrect:
  • You censured the information as a "direct copy", which would be commonly understood to mean that article's entire text had simply been copied and pasted and was exactly the same as the BBC News article.
    • A "direct quotation" is commonly understood to mean one in which the words were not changed.
    • A "copy" is commonly understood to mean a duplicate.
  • Your other explanation was "You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences." The problem here was that every sentence my article was different to those in the BBC News article. Again your reasons for censuring my article appeared incorrect.
It is apparent that you are blind to your own poor wording and thoughtless miscommunication.
Instead of assuming WP:IGNORANCE arising from your own failure to clearly communicate, you thought I was "exploiting Wikipedia as a platform to pursue greater justice for the victims of child abuse", which you wouldn't have thought if I was writing about something more positive. We all make mistakes. Let's see if we can learn from them and move on.
Tots & little ones matter! 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which you wouldn't have thought if I was writing about something more positive" - not quite, I think that because:
  1. Your username is pretty blatantly parking your tanks on the lawn, an impression backed up by
  2. your single-minded focus on the one topic, and
  3. your bad-faith accusations against anybody who has called you on your wiki-issues that they are opposed to coverage of the topic.
That said, I appreciate seeing that you fixed some of the points I mentioned, and see reason to hope that you'll develop as a wikipedia editor. One word of advice from what I've seen of your contributions today - be patient. Trying to short-cut the processes just makes things harder to achieve in the long run. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I find it strange that you're still upset about the text I used two weeks ago. It comes from the templates {{Db-copyvio-notice}} & {{Db-csd-notice-custom}}. If you have a genuine problem with the text, and can suggest ways to improve what are two very widely used templates, and you're sure your improvement will work in every context, please raise it on their talk pages. Cabayi (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Berkhamsted child rape network moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Berkhamsted child rape network is a reproduction of a page that has been moved to draft. I've moved this page to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a draft that's being investigated for copyright issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp where it started off. (courtesy fyi ping for K.e.coffman) Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about fair use phrases

I am trying to work out which phrases in this table that were highlighted in a copyvios report are permissible under fair use and whether any are a copyright violation. Would anyone mind taking a quick peek and telling me if any of the phrases are a copyright violation? Thanks. Tots & little ones matter! 20:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, the phrases that are copied from the sources are highlighted in red in this tool; you can ignore proper names and (limited) quotations in quotation marks. There's not really a great deal of it left, but there is – for example – just no reason to write "two years and six months" when you could just as well write "two and a half years", no reason to write "with a five year extended licence" when you could just as well say "and five years on licence" or "with a further five on licence" or "with an extended licence period of five years". I've already offered once to deal with this for you, but saw no indication that that was wanted; the offer still stands. Please don't make any further edit to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network – it carries a large notice which clearly tells you not to do that – but make your changes to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp only. Please also understand that we have, unfortunately, many copyright problems to deal with and not many people to deal with them; someone will deal with this one sooner or later, but pestering people is unlikely to make it happen any sooner. Thanks.
I'm leaving this open just in case some other admin has a second or different opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I am accepting your kind offer to rephrase any remaining copyright violations in my draft. I have restored the Conviction(s) column and rephrased the criminal offences as much as possible. If there are any remaining violations then please do fix them. Thank you. Tots & little ones matter! 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pendent

Hi Tots & little ones matter!, Good day. I am one of the reviewers in Wikipedia and I have checked the sources you provided and could not find anywhere that stated the operation of child abuse case was the result of operation Pendent. I also checked on the web and would not find anything of the name as well. Kindly advise why the name of the article is chosen and if I have missed Operation Pendent mentions in any of the sources you provided, kindly inform. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've ignored my advice to avoid trying to short-cut the processes so that we now have 3 copies of the article to deal with.
I don't think I'm making any wild assumptions when I say Operation Pendent is a cleaned up version of Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp as shown by the fact you've re-created Berkhamsted child rape network as a redirect to the new article.
Justlettersandnumbers, would it be acceptable for Tots to tag Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network and Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp with {{db-g7}}? Or for the creation of Operation Pendent to be taken as an implicit G7 for those drafts? The copyright investigation queue is backed up enough without redundant requests. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now at Berkhamsted paedophile ring, and can be developed there. I advise TLOM to stop treating this encyclopaedia as a playground. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, please do not leave such descriptive edit summaries about child abuse, and in particular do not include names of living people. For example, when adding a link to a template, "add link" is usually enough. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Kidwelly satanic child rape cult

Hello, Tots & little ones matter!,

Thanks for creating Kidwelly satanic child rape cult! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Hi, Good article on a terrible crime, I'm just placing a copyvio suspected tag and getting a second opinion

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more experienced editor says good to go and tag removed. Well done on a good article. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tots & little ones matter! and BLPDELETE review. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maternalistic_Lioness&oldid=908030488"