User talk:Fwardell

Welcome!

Hello, Fwardell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Fwardell, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Myers Park (Charlotte) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myers Park (Charlotte)

In this edit, you added the edit summary:

Added back this original Wikipedia section which was inadvertently removed by Dianna June 1, 2018 due to copyright concerns after I was updating.

@Diannaa: can obviously speak for herself, but I don't believe the removal was inadvertent. The material you added is much too close to the text at this site. While that site does not have an explicit copyright notice, it does not have an explicit license allowing its use and without evidence that it is public domain, or possibly copied from some other location which is properly licensed and this particular site failed to add the license, it is a copyright issue.

If you believe that material can be used, the burden is on you to show that can be found somewhere with a proper license and in which case they should be a proper reference.

Please let me know if you have any questions.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to temporarily hold off a revision deletion of the material, on the chance you need to look at it to help explain why it is not a copyright violation, but it will probably be revision deleted if that evidence cannot be supplied.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm responding to your talk/concern regarding my recent edits this morning to the subject Myers Park (Charlotte).

1) I replaced (copy/paste) the section "History of Myers Park," which Diannaa had removed on June 1 (I recall). This section was in place on Wikipedia long before I began making revisions, was not revised by me, and should have not been removed.

2) I added "Boundaries of Myers Park" today. Diana removed this the other day because I had copied/pasted it from www.mpha.com (official Myers Park Homeowners Association website). This most recent addition was not a copy/paste but a paraphrasing by me of the description of the boundaries. It is simply a factual road-by-road description of the perimeter of the neighborhood.

3) I added the section "Myers Park Homeowners Association" today. Dianna removed this the other day similar as above. Today's addition by me is simply my words paraphrasing the factual description of the organization. It is similar to the description in our www.mpha.com website because both sites are describing the same thing, and for it to be correct it has to be similar (but it's not verbatim or real close ).

4) I have a request of Wikipedia. I am editor of the Myers Park Homeowners Association semi-annual publication, The Oak Leaf. In our upcoming June 2018 issue, I would like to add some of the information from Wikipedia to show our subscribers and to get them familiar with Wikipedia. Please advise your approval and let me know how to characterize permission.

Thank you,

Fwardell Fwardell (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start by commenting generically. One of the more challenging situations is when the following sequence of events occurs:

An editor adds some material to a Wikipedia article in their own words
A third-party site decides to copy the material onto their own site. The copying is permitted but only if they provide attribution, which is not always provided. In some cases, they assert copyright over the entire site, which is flawed, while in other cases they make no explicit statements about copyright, which leaves the impression that it is subject to copyright by default, which is also wrong.
Someone removes the material from the Wikipedia article for some reason. This rationale may or may not be legitimate
Someone decides to restore the removed material, but fails to note in an edit summary that it is a restoration of material as opposed to the original adding of material.
The CopyPatrol program detects the addition of the material (in the restoration), finds that it closely matches some material at the third-party site, and flags it as a potential copyright issue.
An editor, such as myself, reviews the CopyPatrol reports, as these that the material does indeed match a third-party site, notices that the third-party site does not have any indication that the material was copied from Wikipedia, notices that the addition of the material (the second time) to Wikipedia is not accompanied by an edit summary explaining that it is a restoration of material removed earlier, and concludes that it is a copyright violation of the third-party site.

These situations do occur. It can be sorted out with a little detective work, but it does take some work, all of which could be avoided if sites copying from Wikipedia followed our rules and if editors restoring material also follow the rules.

It sounds like you are asserting that's what happened here. I haven't yet reached that conclusion but let's discuss what I found so far and see if it is in fact a case of the restoration of material originally written for Wikipedia.

I see that some material was added on 26 July 2013. I realize you can no longer see it but it was an edit by Uscjake, with the edit summary "expanded history".

That material matches the text at this site.

That material was removed by Discospinster 17 September 2013 as a copyright violation.

That's the material that you re-added on 3 June, I believe.

Is it your contention that this material was originally written by Uscjake, as opposed to copied?

So far, I'm only talking about your item 1. An item for you mentioned that you are an editor of an us Association publication. This may mean you have a conflict of interest with respect to editing the Wikipedia article. Copying material from Wikipedia, with appropriate attribution, is always acceptable but I'm worried that you might be too close to the subject to be directly editing the article. We can explore this further, but let's start with the copyright issues.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]