Xumbrales

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Xumbrales! Your additions to Ad orientem 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• 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.
• 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. Elizium23 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I am saddened at learning (so I have been told above) that I am an ignoramus about what copyright means and at being told that edits of mine "have been removed" (i.e., the messenger has removed them) in whole or in part, as they appeared (to the messenger) to have added copyrighted content. I would have been a little less sad if the messenger had said what copyright content he thought I had added. The article whose present state the messenger is defending is indeed replete with copyright violations: even a cursory glance at the lengthy quotations in the references section shows that. It wasn't I who put them in. The messenger has also accused me of duplicating another article, one of several in which the same editor has inserted the same material. Apart from the article I am accused of duplicating, they probably include Matins, Nocturns, Sext, Liturgy of the Hours, Prime (liturgy), Little Hours and/or several more. One could comment also on that editor's addition of three sources to show what is said to be the purpose (only his own or that of some community?) of the cross whose image he has uploaded. I must leave the article as it is, presenting the eastward-praying custom as the prevailing Christian fashion to the exclusion of any other present-day usage (as the messenger seems to desire). As a test, I'll raise one simple question and then abandon: why does the messenger insist that Augustine, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Livy, Sallust, Tacitus etc. were writing "ecclesiastical" Latin, rather than ordinary everyday Latin, when they used the phrase "ad orientem"? Xumbrales (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Holy water; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)