Talk:Glaucium calycinum

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyvio discussion for Glaucium calycinum

(discussion moved from User talk:Fritzmann2002)

Hello Fritzmann2002! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Glaucium calycinum, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/318650, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Glaucium calycinum and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Glaucium calycinum, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Glaucium calycinum. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Glaucium calycinum with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Glaucium calycinum saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, for the nomination and the templating, but I believe this needs to be looked into. Until it has been, could I suggest you stop creating articles based on that source, as if I am correct I believe they will also have copyvio issues. BilledMammal (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Hello, no worries! Thanks for looking into this. I'd obviously like to be a part of the discussion on this, as pretty much every plant article I've created over the last several years has followed a similar formula. However, I'll wait until there's a proper forum for discussion rather than arguing my case here and risking any unduly emotional responses. Absolutely, I'll put a pause on taxon article creation entirely until this is resolved. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to the process. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 21:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, is there a proper place to formally dispute this? I may just be blind but I can't seem to find it. Fritzmann (message me) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for it too, but haven't been able to find it. I've asked MER-C, an admin who was recently active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, if they could provide some assistance.

Unfortunately, I won't be of much help from this point; I am not experienced with this area of the project, and only came across it because the article was used as an example at the village pump - I will note that I hope I am wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: at the advice of another editor, I've rewritten the article to the best of my abilities at Talk:Glaucium calycinum/Temp. Both the distribution and description sections have been rewritten in such a way that, I believe, is the most unique from the referenced text while still maintaining the integrity of the information. Hopefully that is sufficient to avoid any possible copyvio issues. Fritzmann (message me) 23:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing; don't hesitate to revert if you don't like it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann (message me) 23:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002, I suggest asking at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants for someone to look at the rewritten article. It seems to be an active project. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just posted a message. There are some very active experienced editors there who should be able to provide valuable input. Fritzmann (message me) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe five days was the established time period for discussion on copyvio, is there any more input? The temp article has been edited pretty comprehensively; it seems safe to move that in the mainspace in my opinion. Fritzmann (message me) 03:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see why the original text may seem like an example of close paraphrasing, though I remain unconvinced this was really the case. As for the rewritten version, it's quite different from the previous text [1], so I think it should be clear to everyone that it doesn't look anything like a copyvio. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala and Fritzmann2002: Sorry that it took a bit to get back to you. Copyright Problems only has a few active clerks and we split our time with Contributor Copyright Investigations, which just got a bunch of new cases. The rewrite looks good to me, I'll let an admin deal with it as I think there may be histmerge needs? We rarely get rewrites so I don't know what to do. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a history merge is the best option: there's a little bit of temporal overlap in the histories of the two pages (so that a histmerge would result in an odd-looking bit in the history); there won't be any attribution issues if the text is copied to the main article by the same editor who is its original contributor. I'm not aware of the nuances of the procedures here, but I believe Fritzmann2002 can just copy the text over, and – unless anyone objects in the meantime – remove the copyvio banner. – Uanfala (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C I believe has deleted the old article and moved the rewrite into place, judging by the logs. All cleared up now :) Sennecaster (Chat) 19:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]