User talk:Ben Boulden

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ben Boulden, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ben Boulden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read the copyright rules. I didn't copy anything I didn't originally write myself, except for one paragraph which was written by a co-worker in the UAMS College of Medicine and was not published or copyrighted m material. I work for UAMS, and I am simply trying to update the wikipedia entry by deleting some dated content and replacing it with fresher text. The content also was not long. Please remove the block and restore my edits. Ben Boulden (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the article University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, you added text that was copied verbatim from here. The said page is marked as "© 2008 - 2017 Copyright - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ". Whether it was written by you or not is irrelevant. It is copyrighted to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and cannot be copied to Wikipedia without an explicit permission from the copyright holder (see WP:DCP).

This was not the first issue you had with copyrights. There was similar incident 7 months ago, and you were warned about it (here, above on this page). I see no indication that you understand the problem and are willing to change your behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ben Boulden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, you are correct. This is not the first time. I hadn't forgotten that. What I don't understand, then and now, is why the content I added does not fall under the category of 'fair use.' I do understand the difference between being the author and being the copyright holder but since this is a noncommercial use of a small portion of copyrighted text why isn't a fair use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) to repurpose it on wikipedia. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Ben Boulden (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline (depreciated by the new request you already made below). But, I'll take this opportunity to answer your question. Claiming the text you added is "fair use" material is violation of fair use criteria #1 called "No free equivalent". In this case, free equivalent can be easily created by rewording. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Text added to Wikipedia articles is released for any further use, including commercial, that is compliant with Wikipedia's license (described at WP:CC BY-SA). Anything less free than that (eg non-commercial fair use) is not compatible and so cannot be used here. Also, Wikipedia policy is stricter in some ways than copyright law, and where there might be differences between the two, it is Wikipedia policy that must be followed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, 'fair use' is applied mainly to images, because it is a lot easier to reword things than it is to obtain free-use images. Images may not be obtainable for various reasons - a person being now dead is a clear case where a new free-use image cannot be obtained. But words can be changed now and forever. Copyright text may be quoted in very short quotes, provided that they are clearly marked in the article itself and attributed correctly, and this should only be done where there is good reason for quoting directly - such as a phrase written by an author that has achieved a life of its own, or something used as an illustration of someone's style of writing. Otherwise, it's far safer to make a rewrite, avoiding close paraphrasing as that can also cause problems. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to 'non-commercial', Wikipedia is non-commercial. But people advertise books of Wikipedia articles for sale. That is commercial use, and quite legal under our licensing. As Boing! said Zebedee said, any other licensing than at our level is incompatible. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and anyone else is free to use Wikipedia content for any other commercial use, with or without modification, providing it is properly attributed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ben Boulden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, I am consulting with the UAMS legal department how best to get you the permissions you need to allow an update to the entry. If I submit the changes again along with a completed "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" from the university or authorized university officer, will that be sufficient to remove the block and make the changes or are we past that point where that's possible? Ben Boulden (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking, as you have stated you understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. Please see the cautions below regarding conflict of interest and paid editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to release it, for anyone and everyone to use (not just Wikipedia) under an appropriate CC-BY-SA license, and give up their copyright restrictions on it. Why don't you just to what everyone else does and write it yourself in your own words? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that, but I am indefinitely blocked. I thought I had to get the block lifted before I could even try to post any changes. I was the original author of what I posted (yes, I know that's different from being the copyright holder), but I'll be glad to rewrite myself if that's all it takes. Ben Boulden (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deactivated your (fourth) unblock request. Please, do not make more then one unblock request at a time. Feel free to comment, but don't make every comment an unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Can you please remove the block as well though so I can do as Zebedee suggested and rewrite the updates and resubmit?

Hi Ben Boulden. I am Diannaa, and I am the administrator who blocked your account. Normally I don't block for copyright violations when the user has received only one warning, but I did in this instance because adding copyright material to the article University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences has been your sole activity on this wiki. I see above where you state that you are employed by that school. Since that's the case, you should not be editing the article at all, as you have a conflict of interest. Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to your organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because or fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The material that I removed was copied verbatim from several copyright web pages. That's a copyright violation, unless the copyright holder wishes to release the material under a compatible license. Regardless of the copyright issue, in most cases material on the corporate website is not suitable for inclusion here, because it's worded line an advertisement or a press release, which is not at all what we are striving for on this encyclopedia. I will unblock your account since you do seem to understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia and have stated you don't intend to do it any more, but that does not give you carte blanche to edit the article as you see fit. You still need to follow our guideline regarding conflict of interest, and post a notice on your user page that you are a paid editor. You can use the template {{Paid}} for this purpose if you like. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate removing the block, and I will comply with the COI and copyright requirements. Everyone here has been polite and communicated well. I have no complaints against you or any individual who participated in the dialogue today. However, the Wikipedia pages on copyright and the use of intellectual property while comprehensive could be better organized and simplified. I know these can be very legalistic and technical things and hard to simplify, but I did get a little lost in some of the explanations. I really was acting in good faith as a contributor but some of the explanations confused me and helped result in the block. Sorry, and thanks for your continued understanding and patience. Have a great weekend.