User talk:DelusionalThomaz515610 - Wikipedia

  Hello DelusionalThomaz515610, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Education in Taiwan 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, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Education in the United Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Scottish language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surrey, British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polytechnic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, University of British Columbia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Check the Enrollment Report PDF that I added. DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at University of British Columbia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Part of the edit you reverted was not supported by the source cited. It has again been removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you recently removed content from Eight Principles of Yong 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. Remsense留 23:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion of your deletion from Sino-Xenic pronunciations at Talk:Sino-Xenic pronunciations#recent rewriting and removal. Please discuss there instead of trying to force your deletion by edit-warring. Kanguole 01:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not implying experimentation of any sort here. Get your facts straightened out with your empty rhetorical heresies and factual errors before introducing errors to your fellow Wikipedians. Vietnam has never been a part of East Asia, both historically, geographically, and in a civilizational sense. DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I invite you again to discuss your deletion at Talk:Sino-Xenic vocabularies#recent rewriting and removal instead of edit warring. Kanguole 22:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Get your facts straightened out with your empty rhetorical heresies and factual errors before introducing errors to your fellow Wikipedians. Vietnam has never been a part of East Asia, both historically, geographically, and in a civilizational sense.

Then why do you remove Vietnam from articles that are not relevant to East Asia then? Such as Sino-Xenic vocabularies which is about the systematic borrowings of the Chinese vocabulary. Or Eight Principles of Yong which is about Chinese calligraphy. There is also CJK characters, Inkstone, Chinese calligraphy, Hanging scroll, Chinese script styles, etc. All these articles are not about East Asia. Lachy70 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because Vietnam IS NOT relevant to East Asia aside from the Chinese sphere of influence, which itself is peripheral concept in relation to East Asia holistically as a civilization and region itself, which was why I removed it in the first place. Semantically speaking, look at East_Asia#Definitions and try and tell me where Vietnam's relevance fits in the modern contextual definition of East Asia, both in a regional and civilizational sense? Vietnam has never been a part of East Asian civilization and is IN FACT classified as Southeast Asian rather than East Asian as written in page 6 of Anne Prescott's "East Asia in the World: An Introduction" and other modern Asian Studies scholars. The country doesn't even use Han characters anymore and instead uses a Latin Script as part of its modern writing system. You and Remsense don't know what the hell you're reverting by suggesting that my additions are somehow illegitimate, when both of you are actually complicit in introducing factual inaccuracies by misleading other Wikipedians with your erroneous reverts. And why should the restoration of my edits warrant a revert or even satisfy the expectations of one disgruntled user, namely Remsense? Because that the items that you previously aforementioned ORIGINATEs from East Asia itself and are RELATED to East Asia, which is what makes the region unique and different from other parts of the world. And you are the one asking me what the region has to do with the items, namely Vietnam? I'm telling you what matters at the fundamental core of East Asia, in which Vietnam is definitively not a part of despite outside Chinese influences, which I regard as peripheral and inessential when it comes to defining the boundaries of what constitutes as East Asia. That's why I made the previous changes. And I'm now I'm the one being forewarned and threatened with an impending block for pointing out and correcting errors made by other editors. DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Remsense诉 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

See above conversation. DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess I gave you fair warning the first time, but again:

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply