Talk:Boleto

Content is not copyrighted, how can the issue raised by SudoGhost be fixed?
Why do you say the content is not copyrighted? - SudoGhost 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Because it is not, why do you think it is?


 * As suggested by you I have removed all the text that are similar to the original and plus that I got an authorization from the referenced website to partially copy it, although there is no copy.

Here is the email:

Subject:	 Re: Boleto Bancário for Beginners From:	 Francisco Luz (email redacted) To:	 email redacted; Date:	 Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1:45 PM

Cheers, appreciated!!!

From: Andréa Cristina Novais Silva  To: email redacted Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1:31 PM Subject: Boleto Bancário for Beginners

Olá, Francisco!

Estou encaminhando a resposta à sua mensagem, em inglês:

Dear Francisco,

Thank you for contacting us and for your visit to The Brazil Business.

As for your question, you can use parts of the article Boleto Bancário for Beginners as a reference for the article you are writing for Wikipedia. I only ask you to don't use the entire article.

If you have other questions, let me know.

Best regards,

Andréa Novais

Staff writer | The Brazil Business
 * (Note, I removed personal information above) However, a copy of an email that gives permission to use a site as a reference is not the same as releasing the text under a CC-BY-SA license, and copy-pasting an email shows nothing, as there's no proof that the text copied above is the email. - SudoGhost 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, the text is not a copy of the referenced article, so why can't the information stay on wikipedia?
 * It is not a word-for-word copy of the article (but not for lack of trying), but its basically the exact article with some words changed around. That's still a copyright violation.  This article has been plagued with copyright violations since its creation, so editors are going to look more closely at the content inserted into the article. - SudoGhost 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because I have changed the article placing my own words.

Contested deletion
While this page does seem to copy much of its content from the mentioned website, it does also appear to have some encyclopedic value, speedy deletion is probably not the best answer. Enelson (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Francisco luz (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC) First of all, I am the original author of the external article although I have no access to the website. Second, I have made considerable changes to the text.
 * The website states, "You cannot copy any text, either in English or translated to another language." If you are not the owner of the website, then you have no say over the copyright issue. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You also haven't made "considerable changes". You can see here that you have only made a few minor changes.  The text is still mostly the same:  Inks.LWC (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/boleto-bancario-for-beginners. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. January ( talk ) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the material. Perhaps it has been changed in some small ways but here are but two examples of near word-for-word duplication:
 * Wikipedia entry: Merchant's Bank: Financial institution responsible for issuing and collecting based on previous agreement with the merchant. The bank, once authorized to collect payment for the Merchant, will credit the amount owed by the Client in the Merchant's bank account
 * Source website (http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/boleto-bancario-for-beginners): Bank: Financial institution responsible for the issuing and collection based on agreement between the merchant and itself. The bank, once authorized to collect payment for the Merchant, will credit the amount owed by the Client in the Merchant's bank account.


 * Wikipedia entry: Sacado (Client): The individual or corporate entity that pays the boleto
 * Source website: Sacado (Client): The individual or corporate entity that pays the boleto.


 * These sections need to be completely rewritten. JohnInDC (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the two pieces of text, now they do not match the reference text.
 * Cheers,
 * Francisco luz (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The inserted text still appears to be a copyright violation of the source, so I have reverted the material again. Francisco luz is also at WP:3RR (and that is assuming the IP that made identical edits is not the same person), so due to that, in combination with the copyright issue, I would advise Francisco luz to take a break from editing the article for a few days and read Copyright violations. - SudoGhost&trade; 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why dont you take a break!!!, because of you my account was blocked 20 days ago and you never supplied me with information of why you were reverting my edits. I patiently waited until the restrictions were lifted. Now you want me to wait again, you gotta be kidding.
 * If you had done like (talk), I mean, telling me what was wrong I would immediately fix the problem. Again, I am going to put the revision back to its last state and apply for mediation. Please do not revert it, if there is something wrong, just point it out and I am happy to fix it.
 * Francisco luz (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An example: The individual or corporate entity that issues the boleto and whose account will be credited. is found verbatim in both the source and the article. This is a copyright violation.  You were warned several times by multiple editors not to reinsert the copy-pasted material.  This is why I reverted it. - SudoGhost&trade; 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, it is not because of me that you were blocked, it is because of your insertion of copyrighted material, and your refusal to stop, as well as your 8 reversions within 10 minutes. As the problem is continuing, I have reported you to WP:3RRNB.  It is now up to the administrators what action, if any, will be taken. - SudoGhost&trade; 19:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Need analogies and didactic explanations
See good explanation at https://business.ebanx.com/en/blog/boleto-bancario-everything-you-need-to-know