User talk:SuperTah

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Short-faced bear into Arctotherium. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks! I think I know which sentences you are talking about, I must have missed them in the wider edit. I will keep this in mind. Have a good one! SuperTah (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Short-faced bear 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. — Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Again, two short sentences out of 42,000 characters that I added to that article. What I am particularly surprised by is the fact that those sentences were not even direct copies of the originals in the journal. As someone who focuses on scientific Wikipedia pages, the lifting of text from scientific journals isn't merely out of laziness... verbatim or near verbatim quotes are important, as even slight changes to the wording change the interpretation of the science. This can be crucial, especially when handling research that we have not done ourselves. That is why it is common practice here, as far as I can see. Particularly noting the technical nature of the sentences that you stated were in violation of copyright, I was wondering if you could provide additional reasoning as to why this particular edit led to a copyright strike, and how editors like myself can cite detailed research from scientific journals without being threatened with blocking. SuperTah (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the report (https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=82533455) and source (https://doi.org/10.1666/09-113.1) SuperTah (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His SuperTah. I understand that it can be difficult to write for Wikipedia, especially when the material is technical in nature. But everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Short quotations are okay if absolutely necessary, but put them in quotation marks. If you have specific articles that you suspect need checking for copyright issues, you can let me know, or tag them using {{Copypaste}}, or list them at WP:CP. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arctodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last Chance Creek. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Hartley Mammoth Site you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My family history shows great great great great uncle’s killed, my equivalent aunt’s taken north to Canada by mowhawk Indians & sold to French officers. One such descendant turns out to be Cilene Dion the singer! Much to my surprise, however my entire family ( except myself) all have musical & vocal talent so I see this all fits! So having researched this,,, I’m tired of hearing people who’s family were slaves & wanting “ reparations” if that’s the case then dating back long before slavery in the 17+ 18 hundreds, my claim goes back to 1675 & I guess if money is being paid out???? Where’s mine? 71.7.110.105 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone is lost on this, I’m referring to the battle of bloody brook by the native indigenous peoples of Massachusetts, mowhawk, & other tribes of the the times who killed & took slaves at the “ battle of bloody brook, Deerfield Massachusetts circa 1675. ………. I’m just saying, is there a lawyer out there willing to try a 500 year old case? 71.7.110.105 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll indulge you... I do encourage you to fully read the article. The Kanienkehaka ('Mohawk') were neutral in this battle, and would fight on the Massachusetts Bay Colony's side of the war. Slaves are also not mentioned in any of the sources, especially as the nearest settlement was abandoned in light of the conflict. The Kanienkehaka were still in New York during King Philip's War, so your 4x aunt's abduction (presumably from Deerfield), must have happened after the Kanienkehaka were forced into Canada- there's a list of raids in the 'Further Conflict' section. If you want to win your case, your lawyer has to have the right info buddy. SuperTah (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arctodus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Morrison Man -- The Morrison Man (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arctodus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arctodus and Talk:Arctodus/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Morrison Man -- The Morrison Man (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arctodus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arctodus for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Morrison Man -- The Morrison Man (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SuperTah, as you seem to have returned to editing the article on Arctodus, I thought I'd remind you that I left some feedback on the GA review which can still be viewed from the talk page. I'd advise taking it into account if you still plan on renominating for GA. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Morrison Man! Should have said this sooner, but I really appreciate all of your time and feedback, and I apologise for my absence.

I took a long editing break shortly afterwards (among other things I was pissed to miss the GA nom editing window - I really care about this article). Any potential nomination in the future will certainly incorporate your feedback.

Recent edits came from re-reading sources to reinvent passages in an effort to slim down the article, as per your comments. Would appreciate your thoughts once I've fully incorporated your current feedback. SuperTah (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]