Vpn Original App

[Ailene Goldhirsh]

Everyoriginal photograph is a masterpiece composed, exposed and printed by world renowned photographer Ansel Adams. With exquisite plays of light and dark, each gelatin silver photograph exhibits a moment captured by Ansel's eye brought to life through his masterful touch. Only a finite number of original works exist in the world. Typically priced from $4,000 to $70,000, the cost of an original photograph is determined by its origin, condition, size, and scarcity. Every Adams original photograph includes a Certificate of Authenticity.

The documents on List A show both identity and employment authorization. Employees presenting an acceptable List A document should not be asked to present any other document. Some List A documents are in fact a combination of 2 or more documents. In these cases, the documents presented together count as one List A document.

To reduce the risk of fraud and counterfeiting, USCIS redesigns the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card every three to five years. Introduction of new EAD designs does not mean that previous designs are invalid. Both current and previous cards remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card (unless otherwise noted such as through an automatic extension of the validity period of the EAD indicated on a Form I-797, Notice of Action, or in a Federal Register notice). See Section 5.0 Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and/or Employment Authorization Documents EADs in Certain Circumstances. USCIS began issuing its most recent redesign on January 30, 2023. Some EADs issued after that date may still display the previous design format because USCIS uses existing card stock until supplies are depleted.

This document may only be used if the period of endorsement has not yet expired and the proposed employment does not conflict with any restrictions or limitations listed on Form I-94 or I-94A, Arrival-Departure Record. Note: Some individuals who present this List A document, such as certain nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors, must present additional documentation in order to prove their work authorization in the U.S.

In April 2013, Form I-94 was automated at airports and seaports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection no longer automatically provides travelers with a paper copy of Form I-94. Travelers may access Form I-94 information through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website or may request a paper Form I-94 during the inspection process.

The documents on List B establish only identity. Employees who choose to present a List B document must also present a document from List C for Section 2. Employees may present one of the following unexpired List B documents:

An ID card can be issued by any state (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) or local government. You may accept an ID card if it contains a photograph or, if it does not contain a photograph, it includes identifying information, such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address.

You may only accept an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state, county, municipal authority, or outlying possession of the United States that bears an official seal. Versions will vary by state and year of birth.

Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the No original research noticeboard.

Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.

The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. See self-published sources for exceptions.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[c]

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[j] "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

3a8082e126