User talk:Adam at Oxford Archaeology

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Gin Pit Colliery, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello Adam at Oxford Archaeology! Your additions to Duddon Valley 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. Please 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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 1AmNobody24. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There; apologies, I am a little confused as to where the issues lies from the logs. Was in the external link to oxford archaeologies website? I work for OA, and we were hoping to add some information from our works into Wikipedia for others to use, but we have obviously run foul of something. We can release material for use if it is an issue, but we are struggling to read the revision logs and where the offence lies? Adam at Oxford Archaeology (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would for example, a circular link to our companies wikipedia page be better? Adam at Oxford Archaeology (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, there are a few things you need to know:
1. Adding External links in the article body (as you did here) is considered disruptive, especially if you have a Conflict of interest. (WP:EL#ADV)
2. Since you work at Oxford Archaeology, you have a Conflict of interest with all articles that have a connection with Oxford Archaeology. You must disclose the Conflict of interest. (See here)
3. All content you add must be either written in your own words or if copied, the source must be licensed under a compatible license. Otherwise, it is a copyright violation.
I hope this helps. Nobody (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we can certainly sort 1 and 2 out, but all the information we put in that has been removed was in my own words, not directly lifted, but with bibliographic references to our works where raw data only was obtained, which is obviously just standard citation within our academic field, yet all got copyright strikes, which we don't understand? Thi sone in particular is just in our own words, with links to an online source of the information: Duddon Valley Adam at Oxford Archaeology (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, the text you added had multiple sentences that were the same as in this (comparison), That text is under copyright, as seen on the first page of it (© Oxford Archaeology Ltd 2018), that is why I removed the text. Nobody (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to access the iThenticate Report via the CopyPatrol interface, or you won't be logged in. Go to this page, and click on the iThenticate report link.

I removed some text from Gin Pit Colliery. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. — Diannaa (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]