Jump to content

User talk:Jman380

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2026

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Jman380! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I think so far I have been doing that. Jman380 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two out of three of your uploads are not free license or public domain, so not quite. Raskuly (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I apologize Jman380 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to make sure they are free license or public domain please let me know Jman380 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Checking reliable sources, reverse image searching, and reading c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Public domain. If in doubt, don't upload. Raskuly (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on both of those things before you upload more files... a car camera is not stationary camera with no human input, therefore it is not free to use. Journalists and news organizations get permission to use images, like with that dashcam footage, but that doesn't mean it's free use. Additionally, I don't know why you've uploaded another image of the destruction of the Mormon church in Grand Blanc. AP photojournalist's work is not free to use and is protected by copyright. Raskuly (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because I used different pictures that’s the reason now I know it’s invalid. I apologize once again as I am very new to editing it’s not my intention to put copy writed content on Wikipedia, I’m trying to figure out how to do certain things correctly still. Jman380r (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I am very, very unfamiliar with copyright laws, and I’m trying my best to try and find free content. If you know where those other photos in the Austin shooting came from, I’d like to know if permission was received to use them or if they were actually free to use and what source they came from if so. I have only been editing Wikipedia for around 5 days now and just want to positively contribute to the community by clarifying information and adding non copyright images to pages that could very well use them. Jman380 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox photo is CCTV and is not protected by copyright as it is a fixed camera with no human input. The second in the body of the article is a doorbell camera, which is also a fixed camera with no human input and is therefore not protected by copyright. Not every country has zero copyright protection for video and photos created with no human input, but that is the case in the US. Raskuly (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked that up and it still says its protected by the cctv camera owners though Jma380 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just only used unmanned sources for photos like as you said, cctv until I find out how to tell what man taken photos are copyrighted then. Jman380 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They have a right to not release it, but the footage itself is not protected by copyright law because it falls below the threshold of originality. Raskuly (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2026

[edit]

Information icon Hi Jman380! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raskuly. This is a question I've had recently. Multiple articles on mass shooting incidents like the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting have the victims listed in a quote box template with each victims name and age. I keep looking at the Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL and related things on google/wikipedia alike and when I ask googles ai it says it violates Neutral Point of View (NPOV). I have been wanting to put victims names and ages from other articles like Edmond post office or Pulse nightclub into the Quote box template because in my opinion it looks a lot neater and easier to read then for example the Edmond which has all the victims names in one paragraph. I actually did one for Edmond and Uvalde along with the Lewiston attacks and a few others, and they so far have stayed up but I reverted them after reading all the "policy's they might break" I want them to stay up but unless I know if its really ok or not I'll keep them reverted from my changes. I don't know whether i should keep them reverted or keep them just put the names in a different layout or something. I was hoping you might have an answer to my question. Thank you. Jman380 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the usage of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to exclude the names of deceased victims of attacks is not what the policy means. The policy in my opinion refers to creating articles with the express purpose of memorializing someone. I would not ask AI to interpret Wikipedia guidelines and policies as it can make an "argument" for so many different perspectives as the AI does not have an opinion of its own.
Regarding WP:NPOV, I assume that has to do with undue coverage, but as long as victims are mentioned succinctly that is due weight. Sometimes certain victims of crimes are good to identify to help the reader understand the timeline of events. For example, it is much easier to follow that John Doe did this, Doe then did that, and finally Doe did this rather than a man did this, then a man did that, and then a man finally did this.
There are editors who believe that victims cannot be identified at all, even if they've been identified in reliable sources, so there might be push back from some editors. If conflict occurs, go to the talk page to try and sort it out, and if it does not end you can pursue mediation through one of the methods at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Raskuly 🐰 19:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So should I leave the lists how they are or is changing them to be formatted in quote boxes/tables ok. Jman380 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there a smaller number, prose is probably better. Otherwise, quote boxes sound like the more ideal solution. Raskuly 🐰 16:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So it’s would not be breaking any rules/policy's at all correct.! Jman380 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be on board with it, and sometimes there are practical reasons. If there was a earthquake which killed a thousand people, assuming all those people were even reliably identified, it would be crazy to list that many people. I can only think of one instance where hundreds of people were identified on Wikipedia in relation to a single incident, and that was the September 11 attacks at Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks. Raskuly 🐰 00:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jman380&oldid=1360519452"