This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
@CaroleHenson: Thanks for creating this article. It is looking good but I suggest rewriting the text and image captions copied directly from Cymmer Colliery explosion to avoid plagiarism concerns, especially as readers of either article are likely to move directly from one to the other and notice the similarities. ~ RLO1729💬01:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RLO1729, The Signpost article was written about the time that there was a lot of press about closing down, suing, or fining Wikipedia due to plagiarism issues... between cited sources and Wikipedia content.
Yes, I agree that is a good article about copyright issues, which I know something about having rewritten (corrected and clarified) one of the copyright guidelines for written content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand plagiarism concerns between Wikipedia content, because WP is in the public domain. (If you are concerned about copying language from one article to the next, you may want to look at the discussion of the Cymmer Colliery explosion in that article and in the James Harvey Insoleand George Insole articles.)
Not quite accurate to claim public domain, the pasted text and image captions were published under CC-Attribution-SA so should not be copied elsewhere, even within Wikipedia, without attribution. Better to just rewrite the text. Just alerting you to how it appeared to me when I clicked on this article's link in the Cymmer article. ~ RLO1729💬02:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One image is in the public domain. I left that image.
I removed the other image, but the licensing info says:
You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
It sounds like all that is needed is attribution. I made no changes to the images.
The issue is not the images but the text and image captions written by another author and re-used in this article without attribution. I've already written the text and captions once for the Cymmer article, my request above was simply to rewrite them in your own words for this article please. Thanks. ~ RLO1729💬03:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page in a nutshell: When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source.
. (If you are merging or splitting an article, though, you need to post message on both article's talk pages, but there's a whole set of instructions and templates for that.)
You may just want to ask someone at WP:Teahouse about this, because you will likely come across this again and the guidelines are to document that you are copying content (sparingly and not as a content fork) and from what article in the edit summary (as I said I forgot to do and should have done). I hope this solves this for you. If not, please contact Teahouse or one of the "Advice" options from the navigation box in the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia article. Best of luck.
If I created a copyright concern, I would be all over that. And, out of a preponderance of sensitivity, I removed the one image that really doesn't need to be removed. I won't respond to this page again. Just as I said, I don't WP:OWN this article, you don't own the images and the captions. Nor do you have the right to order someone to perform a function that you want accomplished.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guideline link which I will read carefully. However, according to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Things you need to know, editors own the copyright to their contributions. As the guidelines re using content (which I contributed, not "own") from one article in another were not followed, or corrected afterwards, there is still an existing issue and I politely suggest (I've never ordered) that you either add a suitable new edit summary to meet the guidelines or rewrite the text in question please. It is a shame this has grown out of proportion when it could have been dealt with very simply when first notified. ~ RLO1729💬05:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I should have done, though, is said what article I was getting the image and caption from in the edit summary. (That helps people know why there may be URL access dates before the article creation date and track the WP source.)
.svg){kind=small}