Draft talk:Causal equality notation

Hi, I think this is the Talk page for the page Causal equality notation, although I am not sure (I created another wikipedia page before, but it was about 10 years ago).

I wanted to clarify that the "potential copyright infringement" associated with this page is due to overlap with my phd thesis, for which I am the copyright holder.

Can someone suggest how to convey this information to the right place/person, so they can remove the copyright infringement label?

I saw something about sending my permission to license the material in a written letter, which seems like a good option. But I would like to verify how this works. What exactly must I write in the letter? I'm also concerned it will take time; a message says the page could be deleted in 1 week, and it may take longer for my letter to be received and processed by Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Van Horne (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

To help other viewers/reviewers follow developments on this subject, I am copying over some exchanges from the User talk page.

Diannaa: Hello Noah Van Horne! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Causal equality notation, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2724236206, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

Noah: Hi Diannaa, thank you for your services to Wikipedia! I am all for protecting copyrighted material.

You wrote that "this article appears to contain work copied from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2724236206 ". It turns out what you found is my Ph.D. thesis. I am a %100 author of that work, and I'm happy to provide a small piece of it to Wikipedia. Please let me know if I need to "officially" give my permission in some specific way.

Also, I made an effort to re-write much of what I added to the wikipedia article on Causal equality noation, using different words from in the thesis and scientific articles. But if I need to rewrite more, would it be possible for you to indicate specific sections which need to be rewritten?

Thank you again for your diligence.

Noah Noah Van Horne (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa: Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. So your options are to release the thesis under a compatible license, or to re-word it further so that it is no longer the same. — Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Noah: Hi Diannaa, I see that most sections have been restored except for the section which contains the "Economics example". I have rewritten the text for the "Economics example" completely, so hopefully now it does not cause an issue with copyright violation. Noah Van Horne (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa: There's problems all the way to the bottom of the article, not just the one section. see the iThenticate report at https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=95194847 — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Noah: Hello Diannaa, I have reviewed the iThenticate report, which was helpful. Both the sections "Economics example" and "Engineering example" have now been rewritten. These two sections, along with the section entitled "A more nuanced example", can now be unblocked.

In addition, I believe the work which you cited as being the source of copyright infringement, my PhD thesis, is not copyrighted. The website where my thesis was found is a large database. It is indicated at the top right of the page that the database itself is copyrighted. However, it is also specified that "ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works."

This is consistent with the fact that I did not personally take any steps to copyright my Ph.D. thesis, and I expect I would be made aware if I released the rights for it to be copyrighted by another entity. (I said previously that I was the copyright holder, not because I copyrighted it myself but because I assume if anyone would automatically be the copyright holder by default, it would be me.)

Here is the link to the ProQuest website, for you to review: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2724236206 Noah Van Horne (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Noah Van Horne (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa: Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. You are the copyright holder. So if you wish the content to remain on Wikipedia unaltered you will have to release it under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Noah: Okay, thank you for explaining. Does it mean I need to release the whole thesis under a compatible license? I will have to think about this.

Diannaa: You would have to release the entire thesis under license. I am not going to restore piecemeal. Let me know when you are finished, and I (or one of the other copyright specialists) will assess at that time. — Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Noah: I have finished going through the report and making modifications. There should (hopfully) be no more copyright infringement. Noah Van Horne (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR

The fact that this is a Copyvio seems clear, the question is whether this is a notable topic needs examining. Looking through the ProQuest report there are no third party references to the material here. It looks like the different notations for causality are the author's own notation, so its all looking like it WP:OR. --Salix alba (talk): 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)