User talk:Zsteve21

Welcome!

Hi Zsteve21! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

Wikipedia:Content assessment XTools

Splitting

Moving/Splitting articles (Case 1)

Hello, Zsteve21,

You are a very new editor, you have less than 200 edits. Please do not move or split highly visible articles without first initiating a talk page discussion AND waiting for other editors to respond. If you get no response, then go to the appropriate WikiProject--there are hundreds and you can find related WikiProjects by looking at the article's talk page--and post a notice on their talk page, inviting people to participate in the move/split discussion.

While Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, your editing choices are becoming disruptive, you are doing moves that even editors with years of experience would want to discuss first. If you have questions about any of this or want confirmation of this opinion, please bring your concerns to the Teahouse where you can talk with experienced editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. As stated above. Don't split articles as you did at Amusement Today without properly tagging the page and initiating a discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC) —JlACEer (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting activism (Case 2)

Hi, just some advice. You seem to be confused and think you are doing a good thing by trying to split articles everywhere. However that's generally not appreciated by many people who actually contribute to those articles and usually requires specialized knowledge to know when, where, and how to split a topic. Suggesting a split in a talk page is fine, but if you don't find other regular editors who are interested in the split (or no response at all) I suggest leaving the page alone. Ergzay (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page splitting (Case 3)

I see there's NUMEROUS warnings and advice on your talk page about page splitting. As you know already, I'm here because you split yet another article, without fully cleaning up the issues that caused, despite there being an ongoing discussion in regards to further splits and how to handle them. I strongly advise you to stop doing page moves and splits, or the level of disruption it causes may result in a block. -- ferret (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I thought I fully cleaned up after my split. Did I happen to miss something? zsteve21 (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make six more edits to clean everything up. Regardless, the point is you performed another page split without consensus and in opposition to an on going discussion. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Switch Games

Hi Zsteve21. I came across this article as it has cite errors, however I can't fix them as the page won't display properly. It's far to large, and appears to duplicate the split up list of games that already exists. Is there a reason it's in article space? Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted. Zsteve21 never should have created it. The list of Nintendo Switch games (lowercase, proper article title) is split into multiple pages on purpose due to technical limitations. -- ferret (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was to exaggerate how some people promote large articles. zsteve21 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. We're not interested in disruption to make points. -- ferret (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked!!!

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Within Wikipedia

Copying within Wikipedia (Case 1)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Presidency of Donald Trump into 2017 Affordable Care Act replacement proposals. 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. DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright (Case 2)

Hello Zsteve21! Your additions to Homelessness in Hungary 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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) 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (Case 3)

It appears that you copied or moved text from Esperanto to Lernu!. 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. DanCherek (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about your editing, including copying within (Case 4)

Regarding this edit:

Please familiarize yourself urgently with WP:CWW; copying content within Wikipedia articles without attribution violates the license. See as but one example, the content copied from one article only in that edit without attribution.
I have now added the {{Copied}} template to the article talk page for the content retained, and attributed the copying within in edit summary for attribution. Doing this after the fact is considerable more work than correctly attributing copied content in edit summary at the time it is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After I have finished the work to attribute the copying within with templates on the article talk pages, I will come back to discuss other serious problems with this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the more serious issue of failure to attribute when copying within, these pages may also be helpful:

WP:SS
WP:WIAFA
WP:FAOWN
WP:MEDMOS including WP:SUFFER and WP:MEDORDER
WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE

If you are unsure if/when you are editing a Featured article, you can look for the bronze star at the top right corner, or check the article talk page. Your edit added 800 words of content that can be better accounted for within proper sections and using wikilinks correctly-- entire sections about other terms and conditions were not helpful to this article.

Your edit presumably copied from other articles as well; I did not attribute those as I have now removed them, but in the future, if you are copying from multiple articles, you might consider doing the copy from one article at a time, with proper attribution.

Your edit also left the article full of HarvRef errors (you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js if you want to see them).

The edit also introduced a vague citation from the Chilren and adolescents section, and as that info was only marginally useful, I've removed it.

I've reverted most of your edit, keeping some of the content about children and adolescents,[1] while attributing it in edit summary as copied within. Please discuss major edits to Featured articles on article talk and gain consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am additionally concerned that you are still doing this after so many notifications; Diannaa might explain the problem better than I have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In plain language: It's okay to copy from one Wikipedia article to another, 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 our license. Zsteve21, please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems that you have looked into my talk page. After reading your message, I am reflecting and evaluating my ways of editing. However, I am only reminded of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies whenever I violate them, so therefore it is quite difficult for me to fully understand the standards expected when contributing to Wikipedia. zsteve21 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zsteve21, I didn't "look into your talk page"; while waiting for your response to my post, I saw your subsequent edit which indicated that you were aware of how many times CWW has been brought to your attention. You've numbered three of them in that edit. It is important that you not forget this again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archive URLs in citations

Hi – in circumstances where you want to force a citation to favour the original URL over the archived version, you can simply add url-status=live as another parameter in the citation rather than removing the archive URL. Cheers! XAM2175 ^(T) 12:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Golden Ticket Awards till 2010 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Golden Ticket Awards till 2010 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Golden Ticket Awards till 2010 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—JlACEer (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your edit to British Rail Class 717 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. This was content you added back in March 2022. — Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation vs. Set index article

Please read very carefully WP:DAB and WP:SIA. It is not appropriate to change these definitions, even if it's through ShortPages. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cần cài đặt định hướng và chỉ mục tiếp cận cac thiết bị bên ngoài . something @ 125.235.232.122 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lập chỉ mục tiếp cận các thiết bị bên ngoài something

Cần tạo lập trình chỉ mục tiếp cận các thiết bị Android 125.235.232.122 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editio princeps

Hello Zsteve21. Quite a long time ago (2021) you splitted the list editio princeps due to its cumbersome size and made three new lists: List of editiones principes in Latin, List of editiones principes in Greek and List of editiones principes in languages other than Latin or Greek. I plan to make several major changes to editio princeps and the three related articles and so I opened a discussion with User:P Aculeius at his talk page (P Aculeius discussed with you at the article's talk page the splitting). If you are interested in giving an opinion, please leave a message on his talk page's. Saluti,Aldux (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]