Graptaloyia
December 2013 edit
Welcome!
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Marlow Navigation Building, Head office, Cyprus.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Marlow Navigation Building Head office Cyprus.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Continuing copyright infringement edit
I see that you have again posted the article Crew Management, the text of which is mostly made up of content copied directly from other sources. Here are just three example quotes: the page http://marlow-navigation.com/en/what-is-crew-management-services.html contains the text "incorporates a variety of activities handled by crew management companies and their manning agencies"; the article you created contained "incorporates a variety of activities handled by crew management companies (or crew managers) and their manning agencies". The same source contained "This includes the sourcing, recruitment, selection, deployment, scheduling, training/upgrading programs, and on-going management of seafarers engaged on vessels under crew management contracts"; the article you created contained "This includes the sourcing, recruitment, selection, deployment, scheduling, training/upgrading programs, and on-going management of seafarers – officers and ratings – engaged on vessels under crew management contracts." The page http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade/number-and-nationality-of-world's-seafarers contained "The worldwide population of seafarers serving on internationally trading merchant ships is estimated to be in the order of 466,000 officers and 721,000 ratings"; the article you created contained "The worldwide population of seafarers serving on internationally trading merchant ships is estimated to be in the order of 466,000 officers and 721,000 ratings". In all of those cases you use wording taken directly, word-for-word, from the sources, the only changes you made being the addition of parenthetical glosses ("or crew managers" and "officers and ratings") embedded within sentences which were otherwise copied without change. On my talk page you wrote "These industry organisations would encourage this". That may or may not be true, but if they wish to license the contents of their web pages for free reuse by anyone in the world, unchanged or edited in any way whatever, for any purpose, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia (as you claim is done by posting to Wikipedia) then they need to say so, and you need to show us that they have said so: we don't assume that they have done because somebody who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so, without providing evidence. Wikipedia policy is that evidence of licensing of content must be provided for copied content to be accepted: we don't wait for copyright owners to complain. The page will be deleted again: please do not restore the content in question without providing proof that it is licensed for free use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (which is highly unlikely in the case of contents of a page bearing the notice "©2015-2016 Marlow Navigation All Rights Reserved"). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- And now you've removed the close paraphrasing tags, which I added to give you a chance to put it right. Off to speedy deletion it goes then. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You are being very irrational and simply on a malicious agenda, for whatever reason. This is the case, as this content is unique written by this contributor. Please stop, otherwise you shall be reported for this. Graptaloyia (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- How you can continue to claim that the content is written by you, when you have been given several direct quotes showing that you used identical wording to that in sources, I cannot understand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
How can you continue to take this stance if you do not understand? Wikipedia is full of material taken from other sources, collated and integrated. It is known as intertexuality. If all articles relied on only material uniquely written by users, then it would all be heresay and pure fantasy; and Wikipedia would loose its credibility. If the material is cited, then the content is acknowledging the source for the reader, who can link there for more information. Hence offering credibility. We are speaking here about a definition of a phrase and industry, which should remain accurate and in line with what it is, and not simply re-word it entirely, as this changes the meaning. We are also speaking about factual information revealed by industry bodies, which should stay as so and not altered.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) 
Graptaloyia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User JamesBWatson seems to be on a malicious agenda, altering contributed content. User JamesBWatson was kindly requested to offer alternative edited version, who proceeded to ignore and simply delete then block, citing copyright. Contributions are of value and open to the public. Wikipedia is full of material taken from other sources, collated and integrated. It is known as intertexuality. If all articles relied on only material uniquely written by users, then it would all be heresay and pure fantasy; and Wikipedia would lose its credibility. If the material is cited (as suggested by Wikipedia), then the content is acknowledging the source for the reader, who can link there for more information. Hence offering credibility. We are speaking here about a definition of a phrase and industry, which should remain accurate and in line with what it is, and not simply re-word it entirely, as this changes the meaning. We are also speaking about factual information revealed by industry bodies, which should stay as so and not altered. Beyond this, contributions were further edited and re-worded to not be exactly the same, yet no opportunity was provided to proceed, help and make the article fit better to Wiki standards - if that should even be the case. JamesBWatson is simply being difficult, for whatever reasons, and unhelpful to the Wiki community to learn and contribute to more valuable articles and information
Decline reason:
Violating copyright is not acceptable, and it isn't healed by citing the source. Huon (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
November 2020 edit
Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hiccup, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)