Talk:Bulbophyllum sect. Hemisterantha

Translation/potential copyright
Pinging as the author and  as you have the expertise and familiarity.

Me again, with another potential copyright issue. I was having trouble confirming the source talked about the plant(A source which, despite the reference, was not in French and cites page 14 instead of 29/30), I did some googling and found this external site that a)pre-dates this Wikipedia article, as per the webarchive and b) contains the phrase "Epiphytes with creeping rhizomes giving rise to a single, persistent leaf that blooms on a single flowered inflorescence"- which we can compare with the text on our Wikipedia article that states "Species in this section have creeping rhizomes with a single persistent leaf that blooms on a single flowered inflorescence." I know it's only a small sentence, and the information comes from the same original source, but it's close enough to make me uneasy-but I would like to know but Diannaa's opinion on it, and whether Cs california copied/translated this article from another Wikipedia. (I have checked the Spanish and German Wikipedias, but haven't found anything yet.) Apologies if this turns out to be nothing, but I thought I'd double check. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are overstepping your grounds for the copyright stuff as it counts under fair use for being Transformative use for fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. I don't see how this is different from wikipedia hosting sample music as in File:Mariah_Carey_-_All_I_Want_For_Christmas_Is_You.ogg which has more text of the original content than I have in my edit. But I edited it in good faith because you were concerned. Second the attribution thing would have been resolved early if Diannaa just informed the proper way to attribute the page by just add the summary and investigated what the issue was. Third I think a decent case can be made that Diannaa negligently use the copypatrol tool and abuse her powers as an wikipedia admin as follows:

As I mentioned previously I will fix most of the attribution issues. Since I did the edits it is easier for me to fix them. It is fine if you want to fix the attribution, but if you guys are going through and scrutinizing pages I previously created with no evidence, causing me to spend more time responding to your comments than editing pages then I think we should setup a Dispute resolution noticeboard and have a third party look at the conduct and give a resolution.--Cs california (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First my August 2 edit on Espostoopsis instead of assessing the user and assuming good faith edits and asking doing a proper investigation on the edit as recommended in Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes. She blank the edit and pasted a copyright violation template on my user page. If she had did proper investigation she would have noticed that I have an account around 5+ years before the Help:Translation article was established and I did not know about the issue and that this page was machine translated not copied.
 * Second on October 11, on the page Cleistocactus pungens she again placed a copyright template on my talk page. And then negligently edited the page without checking the source page she used as seen here the photo on the source was and still is a translated page with an incorrect picture of Pelatantheria insectifera, which is not a cactus and she later removed. After I told her it was not copyright material she vaguely mentioned to add attribution on my talkpage but made no explanation on how it is done.
 * Third On 6 November 2023‎ she informed me of another no attribution issue here. But again made no attempts to reference how to do it or link a source to provide it. Next on November 24 she post a copyright template for Pelecyphora alversonii on my talk page and then blanks the edit on the page.  Following the message I substantially complied in good faith as seen here and in future edits. This further demonstrates failure to investigate and address the proper issue as provided by Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes, that she abused her administrative powers by blanking the page, and misused / spam the template as I did not "added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission" but move material between wikipedia projects and did not properly add attribution. If any other users blank multiple.
 * Fourth I did not know how to add the translation attribution work before you told me how in our discussion on 15-16 December 2023. Despite substantial compliance Diannaa threatens to block me
 * Fifth Diannaa accused me of Unattributed Copying on 25 December 2023 for pages Harrisia caymanensis and Loxanthocereus faustianus. My response was that "They are sourced in the article." She provided no evidence supporting her claim that they are unattributed copying, which they were not.
 * Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. In other words, on Wikipedia fair use law does not apply to prose. So I will be removing the copyright content from Bulbophyllum sect. Hemisterantha.
 * We actually don't know what gaps you have in your knowledge of Wikipedia rules until you make a mistake. I see that I notified you as early as March 2022 that attribution is required; your response was "If you want to add that go ahead no one is stopping you." It is actually you who has to do this; not patrollers who find your mistakes. DanCherek discussed it with you again in November 2022.  And  where I added attribution to one of your translations on October 12.  I posted again on November 6 whan you were still not providing the required attribution. You continued to copy/translate from the German Wikipedia on December 16 in spite of repeated attempts by three people trying to explain to you what to do, including myself earlier that very same day. These attempts were unsuccessful until I threatened to block you.
 * It's quite normal for administrators and other patrollers to scrutinize an editor's contributions when problems are found. You are welcome to file a dispute resolution request but I think you will find that's not a good solution when the people you disagree with are attempting to fix your errors with our licensing requirements and copyright.
 * Your post is very long; please let me know if there's any points I did not cover. — Diannaa (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for revdelling (is that the right word? My inexperience is showing) the offending material. There's a similar issue over at Bulbophyllum sect. Imitatores. I reworded it, but it might need a revdel, and I'd be really appreciative if you'd double-check my work. Thank you again for all you've done here. (And I'm just sorry that is probably isn't going to be the last time I ask you to fix something relating to this issue) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. "Revdel" is a good abbreviation for revision deletion. I have done so for Bulbophyllum sect. Imitatores. There's a template you can use for to request revision deletion; Template:Copyvio-revdel, but it's kinda awkward to use, so please feel free to post requests on my user talk page if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa For Bulbophyllum sect. Hemisterantha please explain how my one sentence text with attribution that is disputed (18 words 120 characters where 12 words are in dispute) and the attribution to me is not viewable (despite having information tables and other content in the article that is not in dispute):
 * How does this violate Non-free content when the description is used to describe a group of plants and distinguishing from another group specifically:
 * #1 "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
 * #5 "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic."
 * #8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * How does it not meet the contextual significance criterion where "Meeting the contextual significance criterion" when one sentence is used contextually identify the group of plants?
 * How does this violate Copyrights "In the context of texts: Very short texts (only a few words long) cannot be copyrighted; please note that this does not apply to music: jingles are very short pieces of music. They allow someone to identify a certain company or product, they can be copyrighted." When the text here is short and used to describe the product here the group of plants where it does not take and the following verbatum copied materials are allowed:
 * Hosting File:Mariah Carey - All I Want For Christmas Is You.ogg where 23 seconds of audio is hosted verbatum word for word (40 words 174 characters) from copyright content is allowed and meets the criteria
 * On Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas page the quote "San Andreas definitely lives up to the Grand Theft Auto name. In fact, it's arguably the best game in the series" is verbatum by Jeff Gerstmann and is copyright content from Fandom (21 words 112 characters) is allowed and meets the criteria
 * Next in your notification from March 2022 above is a separate issue, the issue there was coping between the pages within the English wikipedia, that is not the same as copy and translating from another wikipedia project. I addressed your example above in the second point, above where I pointed out that you did not check your edits and you vaguely mention attribution without any references, which did not help the issue. You are trying to highlight the fact that I incorrectly did not add attribution when you notified me multiple times, which I never denied and explained above.
 * You fail to recognize the issue I am making above it is not about the copyright issues but how you address these disputes as an admin. You are equally at fault for improperly addressing the situation correctly, thus allowing it to become a big issue. Pointing out that other users also warn me is irrelevant when you were the first one to spot the issue. The fact is you continued to point out the issue and failed to properly address by showing how to attribute with a reference as User:GreenLipstickLesbian did. If I put dispute resolution it is not on disputing the copyright issue but did you correctly handle the dispute as an admin per Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes.--Cs california (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your post is very long and difficult to understand but here is a response to a couple of your points:What you did is copy material from your sources without quotation marks; that's a copyright violation. Adding short quotations (with quotation marks) is allowed.I did notify you as to how to properly do attribution when copying from the German Wikipedia as soon as I realized what you were doing. That was on October 12. It's a false equivalence to say I am equally at fault for any of your actions, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a false equivalence it is Comparative negligence. The issue I am at fault for the copyright violation. But I was ignorant of the way to fix it.
 * As an administrator you have a assess the situation and a duty to moderate copyright issues. You had knowledge of how to fix the issue I was causing. By not conducting a proper investigation and communicating the solution, you neglected your duty as an administrator causing the issue to balloon.--Cs california (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)