Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is an archive. Please do NOT edit this page. If you want to respond to any of the material please use the articles talk page.

Not violating copyright

A total of 7 websites are using my work [1]. I wrote this material. Its my work. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

correction 8 [2], they alter it minorly apperantly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know I wrote it, it was mass produced offline. So I have to make a choice, allow my work to be deleted or loose my annonymity on the web which I maintained since I touched the net. Hmm... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, to take credit for legitimate work, a person has to provide a verifiable legal name to credit the work to. Fire Star 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's complete bilge. A pseudonym is often used in publishing and copyright is not lost when this is done. Coolcat might find it harder to prove that he is the author without giving away his identity, however. As a compromise I suggest that, as the author, he may find it fairly easy to paraphrase the original article, and this would obviously not be a copyright violation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said The easiest way to..., which could have made my statement incomplete bilge? ;-) Fire Star 15:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, then, there are two key issues in play.

1. Authorship. Did Coolcat write the original document?

   Normally we would grant at least a cursory benefit of the doubt, particularly since none of the external sites explicitly claim copyright. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that point.) Nevertheless, there have been copyright concerns about at least one of Coolcat's prior submissions (Diagnosis Murder), leading us to request a somewhat higher degree of certainty.

   There is an indication that at least part of the document was drawn from another source. The quoted passages below refer to a Canadian government reprint of a U.S. government report (presumably in the public domain as a government work). While we obviously do not run afoul of copyright concerns for a public domain document, Coolcat needs to clarify for us whether he wrote the U.S. government report(?), whether there is an error in attribution by the Canadian government site, or if he added it without attribution to his document.

2. Copyright. Assuming Coolcat was the author of the original document, we need to know for what purpose it was produced. If it was mass produced offline, was it written for a business or a government? In what country, and under what contractual circumstances? If the document was a work for hire, even as the person who originally wrote the article Coolcat may not have the legal right to relicense the text under the GFDL.

Until those questions are unambiguously resolved, it behooves us to err on the side of caution. Tony Sidaway makes a reasonable suggestion above—given that there are a number of editors here who have expressed an interest in rewriting the article in an unambiguously original form, it might just be less effort to resolve the matter that way. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GAP Project/Temp

a bare-bones stub. — Davenbelle 09:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You know, you are converting a well written article into a stub.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFU#GAP Project

CoolCat brought this article to VFU, then unilaterally reverted it and re-added the contentious material. For some reason, several people have taken it upon themselves to revert to the purported copyright violation without making any discussion here or on VfU explaining their reversions. CoolCat has been known in the past to assert that he has permission to use copyrighted material, but then has not been able to substantiate his claim. RickK 05:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation- AGAIN

The copyvio listing for this page was left at Wikipedia:Copyright problems after someone cleared the copyvio tag on Apr. 22.

When I reviewed and cleared the listing on May 4 there were still copyright violations in the article from [3] eg. But the Southeastern Anatolia Project encompasses more than dams and tunnels.. The violations include full sentances and derived writing.

I reverted to the oldest version that doesn't contain copyright violations (and deleted all other versions.)--Duk 18:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we're sentence nitpicking: "Beyond infrastructure development, the GAP was established to eliminate disparities in the levels of development existing between this region and other regions of Turkey by raising incoming levels and living standards of the people who live in Southeastern Turkey" occurs at [4] - if we are to believe the Canadian government, that block of text is copyright to the U.S. Government (State Department, PD in other words). The text that is apparently the source of the copyvio, on the other hand, says "The purpose of the GAP is to eliminate disparities in the levels of development existing between this region and other regions of Turkey by raising income levels and living standards of the people who live in Southeastern Turkey." Unless: a. the Canadian government site is lying; b. the State Department violated copyright; or c. both of these organizations happened to use the exact same sentence to describe the exact same thing, it seems that your argument applies for both sides. If you can claim copyright violation on one or two sentences (not even identical sentences, but similar sentences), I can claim PD on this exact phrase, an exact copy of the supposed copyvio material. If one sentence of a publication is PD, I can't see why the other 50 sentences aren't. – ugen64 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can determine that this is derived from PD works, and therefore is mere plagiarism instead of a copyright violation, then by all means, restore the text in question. I would recommend crediting the PD source though. --Duk 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

I removed the protection from the article. If the revert war continues, another administrator may feel free to restore the protection, but those involved in revert wars should not protect pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reprotected it until we sort this all out. Gamaliel 06:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gamaliel. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There are two major sources that are being bandied about. The first is a Canadian government reprint of a U.S. government publication. (The reprint is here). As a U.S. government publication, the material is public domain, and appropriate for inclusion. The part of that document relevant to the GAP project is right at the end of the linked page, and only one paragraph in length. At the moment, neither contested version of the article seems to contain appreciable text from that external source. The Canadian report is dated 27 November 2002, but the original U.S. source material is likely older than that.

The second source is the external site http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm. The Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive shows that the page has been substantially unchanged since at least February 2001. Much of the text of the second source is similar to that of the first source. I would say that it is extremely likely that the second source is actually derived from the public domain U.S. report.

However, the second page is quite a bit longer than the passage in the first. If the second site is merely reproducing a larger section of the U.S. government report, then everything is still kosher—it's still a public domain work, and we're free to use it. On the other hand, if the second site started with the public domain document and added substantially to it themselves, then the derived work is no longer public domain, and we're not allowed to duplicate it without permission.

Our own User:Coolcat asserts above that he is the author of the expanded document. If this is correct, then we're clear to use the text as he has seen fit to GFDL license it. Being asked to take his word for it, Wikipedia is in a bit of an awkward spot. Some additional concrete support for the claim would help a great deal. We would also need to be assured that it wasn't produced as part of a work for hire—if the document was created while Coolcat was an employee of an government or company, the copyright picture may be cloudier. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, we have some evidence that the text in question might be PD. If PD text is used it needs to be credited; otherwise the editor who submits it is claiming copyright ownership, pretending to grant a GFDL license to wikipedia and committing plagerism all at the same time.

CoolCat claims original authorship and yet wishes to remain anonymous;

1. This isn't acceptable, we can't take anonymous granting of copyright licenses for copied, previously published material- we'll be laughed out of the courtroom when the time comes.
2. If CoolCat really wants to remain anonymous, then why does he claim authorship of something that will eventually reveal his identity?

The text in questioned shouldn't be restored until a PD source is nailed down, which, by the way, will reveal CoolCat's identity ;)--Duk 07:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that claiming original authorship isn't enough. Coolcat has pointed out above that the document was mass printed offline, so we also need to know the circumstances around that. If it was a work for hire, he may not have the right to redistribute the work himself. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFU

For anyone unaware; Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#GAP_Project

--Duk 07:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think having an article on this subject is more important that fighting over whether it's a copyvio or not.

So why not re-write the article so it's no longer a copy vio? I will happily do this on the temp page, as long as I have the agreement of everyone that it will be used. I'm not going to waste my time. Dan100 (Talk) 12:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, after Coolcat rewrote the article (which seems like a waste of time, if he really did write the original work), Duk deleted the entire page because someone forgot to take it off WP:CP and there were several sentences that were, uh... similar... to the original work. – ugen64 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the entire page, I reverted to the oldest version that was not a copyright violations. Please read the instructions for processing copyright violations (on WP:CP) before criticising my actions. --Duk 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still offer to re-write the article. The article is more important than the process. Dan100 (Talk) 20:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that too - if no one else does so, I may do it in a few days. --SPUI (talk) 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point

The point of my long statement way up there about PD sources was not to claim this work was PD - I am quite certain it wasn't derived from a US government publication. I was trying to show you how absurdly stupid Duk's argument is - finding several sentences that are similar to the original work was his argument for deleting the page as a copyvio. I can easily use that same argument to "prove" this material is PD, when it isn't. – ugen64 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can easily use that same argument to "prove" this material is PD, No, you can't--Duk 04:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument was not stupid. (1) the article was tagged (2) a random check of text showed positive confirmation. (3) "Proving" PD does not work the way the copyvio is being proved. :It could be an error of judgement, but by no means stupid. mikka (t) 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is it (possible) an error of judgement? Consider the instructions on WP:CP for processing listings.--Duk 02:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ugen64

ugen64, I don't appreciate the tone of your criticism of my actions on this page.

First: you said that I deleted the article. I didn't, I reverted to the oldest version that didn't contain a copyright violations, per the instructions on WP:CP. I also deleted some history, because CoolCat kept adding copyright violations.

Second: you called my explanation absurdly stupid. It wasn't my explanation, it's the instructions on WP:CP; revert to the latest version that didn't contain a copyright violation. That's what I did. I also deleted some history because CoolCat kept adding copyright violations to the article.

Third: there were several sentences that were, uh... similar. There was about a full paragraph that was almost identically copied. It was the paragraph that started with the sentence that I noted. It was farther on down in the article, I checked it a second time about a week ago, but the history of deleted vs. non-deleted history pages has been scrambled since then.

Fourth: there were several sentences that were, uh... similar. Can you explain to me how big a copyright violation needs to be before we pay attention to it?

Fifth: You are an administrator, {{sofixit}}. Or are you happier just sitting around criticizing others?

Sixth: ugen64, why don't you spend the next three months processing about a thousand copyvios (like I recently have). I promise that you will have very little tolerance for people who keep committing copyright violations over and over.

Seventh: CooCat is a repeat offender; instead of apologizing after being busted for plagerizing and violating copyrights (Diagnosis Murder and this page), he keeps doing it over and over. And finally does a half assed job re-writing that still contains copyright violations. And when that is dealt with he complains over how he's being mistreated.

ugen64, I did the best that I could to address this repeat copyright violation, per the rules, and with my own judgment to keep it from repeating for a third time. Your comments were mean spirited and in some cases wrong. It's not the duty of the administrator processing copyright violations to edit them out. The pages get reverted or deleted, you should go read these instructions before criticizing the administrators who are actually doing the work.

There are 50 to 100 copyvios a day that need to be processed (they are currently a week behind). Ugen64, perhaps you would like to help clear the backlog. Your help there would be appreciated. I have no plans to do any more work there for a while--Duk 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please insert after unprotecting:

• de:Südostanatolien-Projekt
• tr:GAP

Pjacobi 10:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Done --Pjacobi 11:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

You beat me to it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Looking at the identities of those engaged in recent edit warring, I don't think protection is appropriate. Behave! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allegations lacking basis

Ok I am evil. I stole my own work. Can someone please instead of discussing it just read the two pagess? Wiki page in my temp userpage just for your comparasion and the alleged page. Thank YOU!

1. http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm
2. User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp

Please do not threaten me. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First link doesn't work. Do you have another? ooo it worked - third time lucky :-) Dan100 (Talk) 20:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It reads like a paraphrasing without a reference, which is at least plagiarism. I don't know if that counts a copy-vio. Why not just totally re-write it? Dan100 (Talk) 21:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Errr... User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp is the rewrite. I can't rewrite the facts about the dam project and I did add several sections relative to http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm text. Majority of the article isnt from the alleged site. There is absolutely no reason to remove the data dable for example. Wikipedia does not allow me orriginal research. If I write an article from scratch, which I am more than qualified to do so but whatever, that would be deleted. So. I have the material on adiyamanli.org, which does not belong to adiyamanli.org or canadian gov is violating copyrights. Regardless the material not on the alleged page should not have been removed any how. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For those who need it, the Google cache of the adiyamanli.org site is here: [5].

There remain issues with the version on Coolcat's temp page. Coolcat is quite correct that about half of the temp article is not from the external site, however I still have a couple of concerns.

• The introductory material in the article–indeed, nearly all of the material that is specific to the GAP Project–remains unchanged and virtually identical to the external text. The questions regarding authorship and copyright that I asked in the section waaaaay up at the top of this page remain unresolved.
• The extensive supplementary material in the Engineering behind the project section is not really specific to the GAP Project. While much of it might be appropriate in a discussion at hydroelectric dam (some of the photographs are quite neat) I don't think it really belongs in the GAP Project article.

I hope that clarifies my concerns. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. Images are from the gap project and you are right applies to any such dam project. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok I am evil. I stole my own work. Since you haven't provided a ghost of a shred of a shadow of particle of evidence that any of it is your work, permit me to find your statement meaningless.

And your I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd from the WP:VfU page is like someone saying to a judge, "Your honor, I didn't kill that guy, no matter what all those witnesses say, and if I did, it was in self-defense."

So, cough up the proof instead of sputtering indignantly -- it would be a lot more convincing. --Calton | Talk 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't proove something I typed on wikipedia as mine more than I have. How do you expect me to proove it? Content does not exist on google what do you expect me to do? Dress a drag and do the haula? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned that the material appeared (originally?) in an offline publication; could you provide us with details about that? (Publisher, date, etc.) It might help a great deal with clarifying its copyright status. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Publisher of the material is (or was if no longer publishing might have "updated" info) Turkish gov. As it was PD canadian GOV also published it, just like other 7-9+ web pages google returns. I wrote the article myself for the Turkish GOV at the time. Kept what I wrote in my computer just like anything else I write (not that I write many things). Bear in mind the material on adiyamanli.org looks like a burochure, as it was a burochure. I do not hold the copyrights by myself. I know it is PD. Burochures are always pd, thats the point of burochures. Belive it or not. That is not my concern nor is it yours since that is not what we are discussing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rewritten the whole thing. It isn't copyrighted or is GNUL (since I wrote it on wikipedia). The rewritten version however looks nothing or little like adiyamanli.org. There is no proof adiyamanli.org holds copyrights to this material either. Many other google hits show simmilar pages if not identical. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that helps quite a bit. Can someone verify that Turkish government publications default to public domain? This is certainly true for some goverments (the U.S. government, for example) but not for others (for instance, government publications in the U.K., Canada, and a number of Commonwealth countries are covered by Crown copyright, which isn't GFDL compatible.)

We have so far only been able to verify that a portion of the entire document is public domain; the Canadian reproduction of the PD U.S. document only includes part of the material seen at adiyamanli.org and elsewhere, so we still need to follow up on the rest.

As an aside, brochures are not inherently public domain—distribution free of charge does not imply that copyright is waived. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re-deleted

After the discussion above, and at WP:CP, WP:VFU and WP:AN/I, nobody seems to be certain whether or not this is a copyvio. I believe it best to err on the side of caution, thus I've deleted it once more. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 09:19 (UTC)

I've restored a stub version. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Fine with me. What about those images, btw? Are they PD? Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:53 (UTC)

The information on http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines and in Template:PD-USGov-NASA look incompatible to mee. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 11:15 (UTC)

I don't know--the way that I'm reading the document I think we're quite definitely in the clear. Part 1 says

"1. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material if it is for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages."

It reads like a restricted license, but mostly its purpose is to prevent the stuff listed in Part 3:

"3. NASA material may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a commercial product, service, or activity, or used in any manner that might mislead...."

Note also Part 14, which seems to address the heart of the issue. It's designed to deal with images on the site that appear from sources outside NASA. (Emphasis added.)

"14. Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, photographs may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA...."

In other words, the template seems to be correct, assuming that NASA is actually the source of the images. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 2 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Instead of making claims have you done a google search for image names? This falls under vandalism. Your emoved portions not on remote pages. I need proof of copyright of material used. And for gods sake compare it to remote page. I am sick of defending myself. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 2 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Please do not delete this page unless you have a valid reason. Wondering wabout its copyright status and "erring on the side of caution" is not a good reason to delete a Wikipedia article. If there's a good reason explain it and convince other people that it should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum here. This was deleted for all the wrong reasons. Radiant, restore this page, or rewrite it yourself. -- Biot July 3, 2005 08:59 (UTC)

Clarification

Article Version 1 looked almost identical to www.adiyamanli.com. While knowing its was on PD I rest my case for that version as I have no way of prooving it's copyright status.

Article Version 2 had only one paragraph as DUK pointed out. While deleting everything for one paragraph is annoying. Ignore that version as well.

Article Version 3 has nothing as far as I know identical to the remote page. If so let me know so I can rephrase it. I can rephrase because the material is data. You cannot copyright data. Earth has a certain mass, no one has copyrighted that. I don't think they can either.

I do not want to discuss copy vio status of #1 and #2 because it is not important as I have a rewritten version. Hope this helps. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

Background

On June 13 David Gerard un-deleted some versions of the second copyvio deletion (look at the delete history of the GAP Project and this diff, and (I'm guessing) this version). I believe that this accidentally re-introduced a copyvio; second paragraph of the Social Impact Section, starting with the sentence The Southeastern Anatolia Project encompasses more than dams and tunnels. The purpose.... (David, correct me if I'm wrong please). This section is mostly a copy of two paragraphs from adiyamanli.org, which probably copied it from somewhere else. The next day the third-copyvio/revert/deletion/undeletion war started.

Proposed resolution

Can I suggest that we restore everything but this paragraph? I believe Coolcat re-wrote this article from scratch and the latest copyvio was an accident from the history undelete on June 13. I'll volunteer to restore the article if no one objects. --Duk 7 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

PS. sorry I didn't comment on this earlier, I had been (trying) to avoid this page and didn't realize it was deleted after a third copyvio event until becoming involved in Coolcat's latest RFC.--Duk 7 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

I undeleted it after Coolcat asked me to so he could get back his version. Can be redeleted if needed - David Gerard 7 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

• The reason I redeleted it was that, after lengthy discussion on both WP:CP, WP:VFU and the talk page, there was no clarity as to whether or not this is a copyvio. I believe the proper thing to do would be to go to WP:CP and get it verified. A direct copy from any website is likely a copyvio. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 10:59 (UTC)

• Radiant! thanks for the comments, 1) The article was/is still listed at WP:CP, I've updated the listing. 2) My proposal excludes any previously published material, just the material re-written from scratch by Coolcat. --Duk

• • I strongly believe it is imperative we have the latest version back. Anything that is a copy vio can be discussed. I am basicaly blind just like any non-admin. I recomend restore everything prior to last delete. Then you may blank the page and introduce copy vio notice if you really want to. I cannot comment on the material I do not see safely. From what I remember I am certain a copy vio is not the case. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 7 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

• • Radiant! I could get an admin to restore the page, I just want to make sure no admin will ever come up with a copy vio issue as I do not want to get wikipedia in any trobble nor do I want to deal with this issue in the future. That is why I am not bothering admins. I just want to evade any and all conflict. On WP:CP I am linked back here, which is good as this was an on going discussion. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
    • Duk's proposal sounds fair, and I'm sorry to put you both through this legal hassle. Radiant_>|< 19:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Duk how about this version? I tweaked it a bit. User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, looks good.--Duk 19:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)