Talk:Tennessee–Georgia water dispute
.svg){kind=small}
Copyright problem removed
edit
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://saportareport.com/georgia-got-northern-boundary-cant-get-water-tennessee-river/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: - this is complete misinformation; while it is true that the article listed above was used as a source, the material was not copied and pasted from the source. I worked extremely diligently to ensure that the text did not resemble the text in the article word for word, yet a bot still flagged it as a copyright violation. If you compare the revisions and the text in the source, you will see that they differ significantly. All of the quotations used from the article were in quotes. I will restore the material, but am currently working to modify it to resemble the source even less. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wouldn't do that Bneu2013. Please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I would not characterize those paragraphs as "significantly different". In some instances they were word for word, exactly the same as the source. WP takes copyvio very seriously, and adding back copyrighted material, even if it is closely paraphrased, might earn you a block from editing. That's a friendly warning, since I don't have any authority to block anyone, but if an admin sees you doing it, they might block you. The rest of the article was very well done. Regardless, an admin will take a look at my requested revdel, and if they agree, they will revdel it.Onel5969 TT me 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind, an admin has already revdel'd it.Onel5969 TT me 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Will ping an admin to take a look at this again, since it appears to still be close paraphrasing. Diannaa - could you take a look at the re-added copy, as per this copyvio report I'm still seing close paraphrasing.Onel5969 TT me 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The new version still had a huge overlap with the source webpage, so I have removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Will ping an admin to take a look at this again, since it appears to still be close paraphrasing. Diannaa - could you take a look at the re-added copy, as per this copyvio report I'm still seing close paraphrasing.Onel5969 TT me 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind, an admin has already revdel'd it.Onel5969 TT me 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wouldn't do that Bneu2013. Please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I would not characterize those paragraphs as "significantly different". In some instances they were word for word, exactly the same as the source. WP takes copyvio very seriously, and adding back copyrighted material, even if it is closely paraphrased, might earn you a block from editing. That's a friendly warning, since I don't have any authority to block anyone, but if an admin sees you doing it, they might block you. The rest of the article was very well done. Regardless, an admin will take a look at my requested revdel, and if they agree, they will revdel it.Onel5969 TT me 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Diannaa, Onel5969 - I've drafted a major modification here. The copyvio tool still says that there is a 40.8% chance of a violation, even though the overwhelming majority of resemblances are now quotations. The only other similarity is listed here. I'd like to know if my modification is acceptable. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to make you wait, but I'm too tired to do any more tonight. I'll have a look first thing tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to reinstate it now, as it does appear to have been cleared for use. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to make you wait, but I'm too tired to do any more tonight. I'll have a look first thing tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)