Talk:One Queensbridge

Australia: Victoria / Melbourne Mid‑importance

	Australia portal One Queensbridge is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of tallest buildings in Melbourne#Height limits|Government's planning restrictions]] The anchor (#Height limits) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Melbourne City Council Report

User MelbourneStar keeps deleting my section on the Melbourne City Council Report which can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Queensbridge&diff=805867109&oldid=805865761

MelbourneStar claims the text I used is copyrighted which is not true:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/c310-report-crown-development-1-29-queens-bridge-st-southbank.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7865643 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Copyright law of Australia#Government-owned copyright, it appears that the document would be copyrighted, although I have no idea of what the specific laws are for copyright in Australia, and would invite clarification from someone with better knowledge than I have. Ham tech person 05:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article already uses content from this source in other sections by different editors (see reference 1 of the wiki page, it's the same link).

Unless proven otherwise I am going to revert the changes.

If you readd copyvio material you will be blocked. If you find any other copyvios please remove them or at least list them here. The solution to copyvio is not more copyvio. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mention reference one, but while I'm far from an expert on copyvio matters I see zero evidence of copyvio concerns. Ref a appears to be simply supporting number so inherently no copyvio concerns. I checked keywords in the paragraph supported by ref b and didn't come across any that were particularly similar to the original source. Reference c the only part which seems that similar is "It is currently occupied by four buildings including" which isn't that similar to our text [1] and the similarity seems resonably considering it's primarily a statement of fact. The next two sentences are supported by ref d and 2 other references. As with b I'm seeing zero evidence of much similarity at all. I mean "the Falls" name isn't even mentioned at all AFAICT and the only mentions of 2012 are simply mentions of when various permits were issued. If you have come across some text with copyvio concerns, please present it here, and preferably also present the text in the original source that you feel it's a copyright violation of. If you don't understand WP:Copyrights and what a WP:Copyright violation actually is, this is a very serious issue and frankly you probably shouldn't contribute more until you do understand. Using something as a source doesn't mean there are automatically copyright concerns, actually using references without simply copying (or closely paraphrasing) the content is a key part of what wikipedia is. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick check of the text you are adding shows the text you added supported by the same ref above is an exact word for word copy of what is in the document. I didn't check the other text since this was enough to demonstrate there are significant copyvio concerns with the text you are trying to add. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@B7865643: You cannot copy and paste text from that document into the article. What you need to do is use the information contained in that document and rewrite it in your own words. That is how Wikipedia works. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here, as you have already found out. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]