User talk:Editorgal2007

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Editorgal2007! Your additions to Jeff Mullis 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. DanCherek (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bio was not an html page bio on the official state senate site. It and the official photo were released by the Georgia State Senate press office in January 2021. As such, neither the use of the Official photo nor verbatim use of language from the press release violate the copyright.

The revisions from the first paragraph incorrectly incorrectly removed should be restored for the same reason above. The revisions should also be restored as utilitarian biographical language is not copyrighted. Additionally, can anyone explain why the sentence below is preferable to the removed language?

“Jeff Mullis continued to run for state senate until 2016 and he won all of these elections.” -It’s false. “Until 2016” ?? Did anyone bother to check the SOS website? He won in 2016, 2018, and 2020.

Furthermore, even if a copyright claim was made against the article with the removed edits, fair use is a given since the source was cited and and it is plainly identified as a press release. I’d take that case all day and easily win summary judgement.

The restored last paragraph is clearly biased and intended to drive a narrative. It should be stricken from the article.

Editorgal2007 (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only error may have been in the citations. They can be changed to adhere to Wikipedia standard. There is NO copyright violation in the removed language. Editorgal2007 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]