User talk:2A1ZA

Nomination attempt

If you wish to make a nomination to ITNC, please post it directly to the appropriate section of the ITNC page, and not the current events portal, so it displays properly. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear 331dot, doing this for the first time, and I do not find any place to post other than this "Suggestions" on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates, the instructions I read appear to me to tell me to post exactly there. Would you be kind enough to link the page I would rather be supposed to post at? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are posting on the correct page, but (I believe) using the incorrect edit link, which puts your edit on the Current Events portal template instead of on the ITNC page. Click the "edit" next to the date itself and not the one in the collapsed current events section.

FYI links to other Wikipedia pages should simply be put in double brackets like this [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates]]. The whole web address is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it worked. The particular way of linking here was just meant to underline. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

close paraphrasing

'when asked who is most responsible for the depreciation of the lira, only 36 percent of respondents said it was the AKP " - is coming a bit close to a close paraphrase from this source [1]. It is usually not recommended for everything to be in the same order that it is in the source, especially where it was possible to reword it without changing the meaning of the content. In this case, I've reworded this as "During a July 2018 survey, 36 percent of survey respondents said the AKP government was "most responsible" for the depreciation of the Turkish lira". By itself, it's not a big deal, but since there was a most significant verbatim copy of creative language in the same paragraph from another source, I thought I should mention it. (Thanks for fixing the previous one).Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased some of the content but a large amount of content in the article was directly copied and pasted, so even the removal took a lot of time. I've already asked Diannaa to take a look at it and won't be making any edits to the article until I hear back regarding the revdel because I don't want to make the cleanup more difficult right now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your rephrasing is fine with me. What is not fine with me is deleting sentences instead of rephrasing them, so I restored and rephrased sentences you deleted. By the way, I think it would be more helpful to have this discussion on the article talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Content that violates copyright law has to be removed. The person who discovers a copyright violation is under no obligation to re-word it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, as you refer not to Wikipedia policies but to "copyright law", in my legal opinion there is no violation of copyright law of any jurisdiction in the case concerned. And irrespective of that, I do not think that any Wikipedian is under an obligation to edit, I was making a remark on cooperation among editors in improving articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law and the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I made three comments on some RfA today, 1, 2, 3, you might or might not want to read them. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

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, as you did at Turkish military operation in Afrin. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy and copyright law. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, of course I do intend to play by the rules and not "add copyrighted material" as understood by WP:COPYVIO to the Wikipedia. Actually I am very surprised about this allegation now. As you appear to refer to that brief sentence on AI on Afrin from August, I will happily adhere to an interpretation of yours where this would cross a WP:COPYVIO line. But let med add that under this standard, you would have to remove half of that article concerned, and a considerable part of the Wikipedia with it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Amnesty report in question is here and the DW source I referenced is here. What I certainly have to do, for one accurate sentence carrying the substance of information concerned, is to mention the date, mention "Amnesty International", quote the central term "free rein" (in quotation marks) by Turkish forces in the theater respective Turkey, and to name the violations concerned according to the source because these are technical legal terms (for which I could of course also use quotation marks). So would In August 2018, according to Amnesty International, Turkish forces gave "free rein" to their TFSA allies to make residents of Afrin suffer violations including "arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and confiscation of property and looting".? Or do you think that is still too close to the phrasing the sources use? --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you had placed the edit in quotation marks you would not have been blocked. But placing everything in quotation marks is not a good solution. It's important that everything you add here, as much as possible, is written in your own words. Copying the sentence structure of the source document and substituting a few words is still plagiarism. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Also Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As you address details of the edit in question here, I am pretty sure that I did put "free rein" (the central term) in quotation marks. The reason why I did not do the same for the enumeration of concrete violations was that I used a secondary source, as Wikipedia recommends, which however did not carry the enumeration literal from the Amnesty original, so I would not put this part in quotation marks as it was not in the referenced source (my suggestion above entails referencing both sources, so this enumeration could then be direct quote). Next, the term "Syrian rebels", which Amnesty uses (as well as the secondary source), is a bit awkward here to people knowledgeable to the Syrian Civil War. I still carried that term, because I knew that any change would meet fierce protest from other editors, depending on what other term with a necessarily somewhat different connotation I would use (my best faith suggestion above for alternative phrasing is "their TFSA allies"). I did briefly consider changing the sequence of elements of the sentence, but putting Turkey to the end would have been unfaithful to the sources, which primarily directed the accusation at Turkey, not at the "rebels". Cheers -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, thank you for those kind considerations. However, whenever or if ever you would unblock my account, there is one other thing which is important to me. It is all irrespective of WP:COPYVIO, your work as a guardian of it, and any question of how to best balance the desire for unique phrasing in the Wikipedia with terminological accuracy and faithfulness to the sources. It concerns a thing very different from WP:COPYVIO, namely actual copyright law. Right here on this page, you accuse me of violating copyright law, and I am sure we both know very well that this accusation is wrong, as nothing in question here reaches copyright threshold. I would kindly ask you to remove this accusation from this page or at least use a strikethrough. This is a serious concern to me, and I very kindly ask you to consider my friendly request. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)