Welcome to Wikipedia, Aspenbear! Thank you for your contributions. I am Aboideau and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hello Aspenbear, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Lake County wine 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.
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.
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) 14:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump International Golf Links, Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening Express. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I understand the reason to be blocked and will correct the text in the draft
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
PD notice is applied to Federal Register. Doesn't reference to cite information suffice? No pictures or illustrations were used. Regarding the AVA subjects, all information is public domain on the Federal Register. Questionable text can be modified to meet Wiki rules if the block is removed. Thanks.--Aspenbear (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "two gigantic chunks", while they are composed of text from the source, are not verbatim runs (Read closely). The sentences were unchanged, but they were placed in a different order. This you often see with editors who were trying to avoid copyvio but didn't know well enough how. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the places where that happened -- the portions that are from earlier in the source -- and I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but the paragraph beginning Using the federal government's TTB petition process is verbatim, followed by a change of a single letter (from hoped > hopes) and then another couple of sentences just cut/pasted, and if that was cut/pasted, there may be an earlier version that was pasted, published, then edited to move the earlier stuff around, which I think means we may need to revdel from an earlier version.
Aspenbear, the reason this is a problem is that I think it's possible this is enough copyvio that it can't simply be edited or rewritten, it may need WP:Revision deletion. There's also information at WP:COPYVIO. The bigger problem is that if this is something you've done on all your article creations, someone is going to have to go back and fix things there, too.
The problem with a cut/paste move from a non-free source is that the minute you hit publish, you've violated copyright, even if you immediately edit to change words, move stuff around, etc. The original pasting and saving of the source material is the copyvio, and that can't be fixed, it can only be completely removed. It's best to avoid cutting and pasting from other sources at all, even free sources, even into your own sandbox. Read the source, then come here and summarize in your own words.
It's all fixable and can be rewritten or edited. I will make the changes once I'm unblocked. Thanks.--Aspenbear (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Also Northwest text was copied from the Federal Register which is common with this topic. Next time, Can someone just 'talk' to me rather than issue a 'block'?--Aspenbear (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aspenbear, @Diannaadid talk to you about copyvio, twice above on May 24 and 30. Copyvio is something WP takes very seriously. I came here to talk, but then saw you'd had two previous warnings, and then discovered you'd created multiple other articles near the same topic, and I didn't want you to continue working as you were before we discussed. If you'll tell us you won't do any more cut/pasting, I'll unblock (or anyone else should feel free to, if they get here first.) —valereee (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I heeded those 'warnings' and do not 'cut and paste' into articles. If I echo specific info from a source, I reference the source which is allowable. I will firm up the 'Eagle Peak' draft to align with Wiki standards after the 'block' s removed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenbear (talk • contribs)
Aspenbear, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding. You seem to be saying none of this edit included a copy/paste from another site, even though the paragraph in question (starting with Using the federal government's TTB) seems to be identical? —valereee (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, this edit was simply a copy of the Infobox format to be used for another AVA article and not the text. Copying a similar format is okay since Infobox templates are a Wiki standard. Correct? The text was pasted from my Word document where I originally authored the article, hence, the block 'copy/paste' paragraphs. Nothing nefarious.--Aspenbear (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the draft months ago and have become more educated since then, therefore, I am willing to edit relevant articles to meet Wiki standards. The TTB text and info is public domain and I have inserted the 'PD notice' as suggested by another user for related AVA articles. Thanks, again for your feedback and making Wiki more informative.--Aspenbear (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
—valereee (talk), please note which blocks are copyvio in the 'Eagle Foothills Draft' that can be corrected. I used Strunk and White as a guide regarding direct quotes from references giving appropriate credit avoiding appearance of plagiarism or copyvio. @Diannaa introduced me to the PD notice since she found my use of TTB text in the articles which some may interpret as copyvios. Again, my actions were not meant as flagrant fouls to Wiki rules but will be tailored accordingly since this is a Draft we are discussing.--Aspenbear (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So where was it copy/pasted from? —valereee (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC
Happy Independence Day to everyone! Regarding “Eagle Foothills Draft”, I gather the construction in the “Unique AVA” text is questionable. My use of footnotes, quotes and verbiage are clearly from the TTB document and the Great Northwest Wine article that also reiterates the TTB announcement following similar format I used from Stunk and White’s “The Elements of Style” template used in academic circles. If the text of the article appears as ‘close paraphrasing’ than the attributed source can be explicitly included in the article. That is a satisfactory action according to published Wiki guidelines.--Aspenbear (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aspenbear, I am sorry to seem dense here, but I am not seeing the Great Northwest Wines language in the federal register source? Here's the comparison I'm seeing with the federal register: [1]. Here's the comparison I'm seeing with the Great Northwest Wines website: [2]. Are you talking about something different? Because to me it looks like the paragraphs I'm talking about were copied directly from the wine site.
If that's accurate, unfortunately it looks like the copyvio was introduced in the very first edit when the article was created from a copy of a similar article. I'm not sure whether it's a serious enough problem that this means we have to completely delete the draft and start over, so I've asked Diannaa at her talk for advice, as she's an expert.
I've cleaned the draft, removing the copied sections. Aspenbear, I don't know where you got the impression that close paraphrasing is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines or policies. It's not. Everything you add here should be written in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Diannaa (talk). The fireworks were very good this year. Lost in translation: I never thought 'close paraphrasing' was allowed under the guidelines. Since Wiki is public, writers can interpret text to be and improve it to align closer to the guidelines which is agreeable rather than issue a block. Thanks again.--Aspenbear (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The patrolling administrator is under no obligation to re-write the copyright text for you. There's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup (less than five), it's not practical for us to do so.— Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aspenbear, I'm not sure you do understand. You'll need to make it clear that you understand why copyvio is such a big problem that it was worth blocking you over and why we need to be sure you do understand. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aspenbear, In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. Please respond to the following questions, explaining in your own words:
What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
Greetings, Diannaa: I took a break for awhile. Here is my reply to your questions. I trust my response is satisfactory.
What is copyright?
A copyright is a protection giving an owner exclusive rights to their creative work for a limited time and fashion. The creative work or expression is intended to be protected but not the idea and facts.
How is Wikipedia licensed?
Wikipedia is licensed as free access regarding its content. It can be copied, modified, and distributed if a copied version is made available acknowledging the authors of the Wikipedia. Copied Wikipedia content remains free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions. Basically, it is the same as free software.
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Copyrighted content is not allowed on Wikipedia because it is licensed as a free access platform which may violate copyright licenses. Content is to remain free under an appropriate license to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions.
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
Creative works copyrighted as ‘public domain’ can be used in Wiki articles such as public government documents.
Also a Wikipedia article can cite its sources linking to copyrighted material without permission of a copyright holder before linking to the copyrighted material. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content.
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
To basically avoid any copyright infringement, the contributors should write the content themselves creating new work which can be included in Wikipedia. Facts and pertinent information can use footnotes, references and sources from copyrighted articles per Wiki rules to maintain the encyclopedia structure of the platform. Aspenbear (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of my 'unblock request' subsequent to my answers to your copyright questions? Thanks for your consideration.~ Aspenbear (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I discussed the copyvio in the draft with editors and corrections were made. Therefore, I should be unblocked after noting the mistakes which will not occur again in my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenbear (talk • contribs)
"What is copyright?" Your answer is partially correct. How can a copyright holder allow someone else to use/publish their work?
"How is Wikipedia licensed?" What specific license applies to Wikipedia? It is not at all the same as free software or free anything. "Licensed as free access" is an incorrect statement.
"Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?" This one is okay
"Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?" It's okay to use public domain material under specific circumstances. How can you tell if something is in the public domain? What special things do you have to do when you add public domain or licensed content to Wikipedia? The second paragraph of your answer doesn't make sense at all so I can't assess it very well.
Eagle Foothills AVA, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
