User talk:VladikVP

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello VladikVP! Your additions to Natural semantic metalanguage have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

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. 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.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
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.
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) 14:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt that I used (which was by the way taken from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101239) is a frequently cited (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13790299595740497552&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en) example from Wierzbicka, Goddard 2014 "Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures", but I was not in possession of the original work, which is why I opted to cite a different article that deals more specifically with the topic. The corresponding article already contains lots of citations and references to works by precisely the same aiuthors, published by precisely the same institution (OUP).

My point is, the rest of the article is based on work by the very same authors... if using excerpts from them is grounds for copyright removal, then shouldn't the rest of the article be deleted as well? The material that I added by its very nature can't be rephrased, so what should I do to be able to use these specific examples on Wikipedia? --VladVP (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed content you added to the same article. The material I removed matches this pdf which apparently matches content found in the book. To answer your question from 2020, the reason the rest of the content hasn't been removed is because I don't actually have access to the book and only removed material I am sure has to come out. If you think there's still copyright violations in the article, please consider listing it at WP:Copyright problems or removing any remaining overlapping material yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]