User talk:OSINTsparrow
Welcome!
[edit]Hi OSINTsparrow! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
[edit]
Hello OSINTsparrow! Your additions to Noncombatant Immunity 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. Please 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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 2A01:4C8:A0:75C2:E42B:61CB:BFEF:9707 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I also had to undo your additions to Collateral damage for the same reason. Please take a minute to read Wikipedia's copyright policy, which the editor above has left a link to in their comment. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Noncombatant Immunity moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Noncombatant Immunity, is not suitable as written to remain published. First, this is little more than a dictionary definition (see WP:DICDEF. Second, it would need more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit]
Your edit to Korean War 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. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Noncombatant Immunity
[edit]
Hello, OSINTsparrow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Noncombatant Immunity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
July 2025
[edit] Your edit to Collateral damage 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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) 10:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am extremely sorry and thank for you informing me about this issue. This post was very informative and educational for me so that I can resolve and not have this issue again in the future. I am extremely sorry again. If there are any resources you recommend I so that I can further educate myself, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. OSINTsparrow (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for this extremely helpful response. You explained it very well and in a way I understand now. I really appreciate your help and kindness in sharing your expertise and knowledge to a newcomer like me who wants to share information with the public for the good of humanity! Thank you so much agains for your help and for what you do. OSINTsparrow (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War crimes in the Korean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air raid. 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) 22:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I’m sorry for any inconvenience. OSINTsparrow (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Still violating copyright
[edit]Your recent edits to War crime are copyright violations. Please don't copy whole sentences from the sources. Write in your own words. lp0 on fire () 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- And also on War. Do it again, and we'll simply revoke your edit privileges altogether. DMacks (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- If I add information on the legal provisions (surrounding war, for example), what is the acceptable line between writing in my own words and changing the content of the legal provision, which has very specific terminology and wording? Thank you. OSINTsparrow (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Specific legal wording for which there is no alternative can be copied, but that isn't an excuse to copy whole sentences wherever legal wording appears, nor to express the same ideas in the same order with the same structure. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize the sources, not copy them. lp0 on fire () 07:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is it always better to err on the side of summarizing legal provisions (i.e., principles, norms, rules) even though it changes the content of a provision to an extent? My last question is: what it an acceptable case where "specific legal wording for which there is no alternative can be copied”? I definitely do not want to lose my editing privileges and do not want to cross that line again. Is it safer to just change the wording in such cases even if it adjusts a specific legal meaning in the prior wording? Sorry for all the questions and thank you for your help and responses. OSINTsparrow (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- An example of a case where specific legal language can't really be changed is when referring to the name of a specific law, or a legal concept that has its own article and doesn't have any alternate names (not being a lawyer I'm struggling to think of something specific) but in general that will rarely be more than a few words. I would say yes, it is almost always better to rephrase it in your own words, and in your case I would recommend erring om the side of caution. If there's a term you think should be copied directly, feel free to ask at the teahouse or somewhere more specific like WikiProject Law. You'll pick it up over time but the simplest advice I can give is to follow what other articles already do (in particular, you might like to look for some good articles or featured articles and copy them in style). Hope that helps (: lp0 on fire () 07:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. The resources you provided are also helpful and informative. I really appreciate your answers, and thank you for what you do. This was very help and I really appreciate your kindness in answering, and your patience with me as these questions are probably very obvious to an expert like you! I understand much better now. Hope you have a great day. OSINTsparrow (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, always happy to help. I'm far from an expert though; I've been here less than three months. I suppose I sometimes have a little bit of a clue. Happy editing! lp0 on fire () 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. The resources you provided are also helpful and informative. I really appreciate your answers, and thank you for what you do. This was very help and I really appreciate your kindness in answering, and your patience with me as these questions are probably very obvious to an expert like you! I understand much better now. Hope you have a great day. OSINTsparrow (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- An example of a case where specific legal language can't really be changed is when referring to the name of a specific law, or a legal concept that has its own article and doesn't have any alternate names (not being a lawyer I'm struggling to think of something specific) but in general that will rarely be more than a few words. I would say yes, it is almost always better to rephrase it in your own words, and in your case I would recommend erring om the side of caution. If there's a term you think should be copied directly, feel free to ask at the teahouse or somewhere more specific like WikiProject Law. You'll pick it up over time but the simplest advice I can give is to follow what other articles already do (in particular, you might like to look for some good articles or featured articles and copy them in style). Hope that helps (: lp0 on fire () 07:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is it always better to err on the side of summarizing legal provisions (i.e., principles, norms, rules) even though it changes the content of a provision to an extent? My last question is: what it an acceptable case where "specific legal wording for which there is no alternative can be copied”? I definitely do not want to lose my editing privileges and do not want to cross that line again. Is it safer to just change the wording in such cases even if it adjusts a specific legal meaning in the prior wording? Sorry for all the questions and thank you for your help and responses. OSINTsparrow (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Specific legal wording for which there is no alternative can be copied, but that isn't an excuse to copy whole sentences wherever legal wording appears, nor to express the same ideas in the same order with the same structure. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize the sources, not copy them. lp0 on fire () 07:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- If I add information on the legal provisions (surrounding war, for example), what is the acceptable line between writing in my own words and changing the content of the legal provision, which has very specific terminology and wording? Thank you. OSINTsparrow (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)