User talk:Jscott482

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Jscott482, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Jscott482, good luck, and have fun. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My rollback[edit]

I was not previously familiar with CPAWS, so I welcome this opportunity to learn more about them. I'm president of a land trust so have interest in their goals.

However, as a Wikipedia editor, I am committed to making sure we respect copyright. You made several edits to this article one of which is clearly a copy paste from their site — the other may have been a paraphrase but are practice to rollback all of the editors edits when a substantial copyright issue is identified. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like more information about copyright issues.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted CPAWS edits

Hi Sphilbrick, the edits I made to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society was content derived from their website but I work at this organization as the National Comms Manager and they're tasked me with updating their entry. We had previously tried to do this through the initial user account User:Cpaws they used to set up the page but it was blocked because it didn't meet the user guidelines. Is there a way that I can continue to make these additions without running into revert actions again? All updates would be completed today. Thanks, Jscott482 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Jscott482, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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 here.

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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) 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.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
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 the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drm310 How do I make edits to this organization? I am the National Communications Manager at CPAWS and I've been tasked with bringing this page up-to-date. So far, all anyone has told me is that I can't make edits as the organization and I can't make edits as myself on behalf of the organization. How do any changes get approved? Jscott482 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jscott482: You are not prevented from making edits to this article, as long as your employment is officially disclosed. However, there are a few things that you must be aware of.

Because you are an employee of this organization, you must make the mandatory declaration of your employment per Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure rules. You must place this code on your user page, User:Jscott482: {{paid|employer=Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society}}
After you make this disclosure, you are allowed to edit the article. However, we highly discourage affiliated editors from editing topics relating to their organization, due to the inherent difficulty in adhering to the required neutral point of view policy. It is preferred instead that you submit suggested changes on the article's talk page for uninvolved editors to review. You can find step-by-step instructions at Template:Request edit.
Please be aware that you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you'd like to use copyrighted content in an article, refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to grant us permission to use your content. Alternatively, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. However you would then still have to abide by the conflict of interest guideline.
Please also be aware that your organization does not "own" the article. No one has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article's content. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.

Hopefully this should give you some guidance so that the article can be updated to everyone's satisfaction. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More advice[edit]

I was writing this while you were being given advice above and didn't want to throw it away so I'm posting this before reading the above advice

There are two problems (arguably a third but the third has been addressed): Our username policy does not permit usernames which sound like they are associated with an organization. As mentioned, that username has been blocked.

The second issue is that Wikipedia takes conflict of interest issues very seriously. Because of your association with the organization you do have a conflict of interest. (read more at wp:COI. We have recently created a process whereby editors with a conflict of interest can request that an edit be made —Wikipedia:Simple COI request

The final issue is that Wikipedia strongly respect copyright and the material on the organization's website is copyrighted with all rights reserved. In rare cases, text from such a website might be acceptable encyclopedic wording but it can only be used if a permission statement is filed by the organization.(See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) This is rarely the best option; it is usually much better for an editor to rewrite material in their own words. In this specific case you can propose wording on the article talk page and request and an editor make the edit.

Sorry for the complications, but Wikipedia strives to be an independent source of neutral information.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that CPAWS doesn't own the page but there's a chunk of, what we consider to be important, info missing and wanted to make sure people were finding the most accurate info. Jscott482 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Drm310 and Sphilbrick this information has been extremely helpful, especially given a frustrating couple of days trying to edit. I'll take my edits offline to rework the content to have a more neutral tone and then re-post as an edit request. Again, thank you. Wikipedia is somewhat of an overwhelming environment initially. Jscott482 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jscott482: You are absolutely right that this can be an overwhelming environment. Thank you for your understanding.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]