User talk:Baldwin601
September 2022
[edit]
Your edit to New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is merely a link to my page, which has lots of location shots and other information. Good grief. Baldwin601 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- You added several paragraphs of text copied directly from another website word for word, which has since been revision deleted accordingly. That's a blatant and egregious copyright violation. And on top of that, you've just disclosed you have a conflict of interest with the website you've been adding links to across Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have never added any text to any Wikipedia article. I only add an occasional external link to my website where it is relevant to the material presented in the Wik article. Baldwin601 (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- So you deny that the edits made by your account on December 10, 2019 [1], and September 6, 2020 [2], were made by you? Is your account compromised? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have never added any text to any Wikipedia article. I only add an occasional external link to my website where it is relevant to the material presented in the Wik article. Baldwin601 (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- You added several paragraphs of text copied directly from another website word for word, which has since been revision deleted accordingly. That's a blatant and egregious copyright violation. And on top of that, you've just disclosed you have a conflict of interest with the website you've been adding links to across Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- To my understanding, Baldwin601 has added links to his own website to articles where that website provides relevant additional information. Additionally, he appears to have added text to some articles which was likewise added to his own website (in that sense, not "another website"). In my view good faith can be assumed, so you, Trainsandotherthings, appear unnecessarily harsh here. I don't see a reason to threaten a ban. Nonetheless, we indeed require that copied texts have a compatible license (Wikipedia:MYTEXT) and adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which was not the case with the texts on New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway. GeorgR (de) (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Using the standard copyright warning template is not "unnecessarily harsh". Copyright needs to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, this is one thing that is not open for debate or discussion. I haven't reverted any of the links to this user's website that he added; I could have removed them all and been squarely within policy in doing so. I'd argue that my leaving those links alone is showing an assumption of good faith on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, experienced contributors like us know that this the standard copyright warning. As it does not say so in the text, the template character is likely not clear to inexperienced, occasional users – and I still think the template text comes off a bit harsh in this specific case, justified as it may be (and surely is) in many other cases. But let's see; and have a good start into the week. GeorgR (de) (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Using the standard copyright warning template is not "unnecessarily harsh". Copyright needs to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, this is one thing that is not open for debate or discussion. I haven't reverted any of the links to this user's website that he added; I could have removed them all and been squarely within policy in doing so. I'd argue that my leaving those links alone is showing an assumption of good faith on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)