Talk:One Queensbridge

Melbourne City Council Report
User MelbourneStar keeps deleting my section on the Melbourne City Council Report which can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Queensbridge&diff=805867109&oldid=805865761

MelbourneStar claims the text I used is copyrighted which is not true:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/c310-report-crown-development-1-29-queens-bridge-st-southbank.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7865643 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on Copyright law of Australia, it appears that the document would be copyrighted, although I have no idea of what the specific laws are for copyright in Australia, and would invite clarification from someone with better knowledge than I have. Ham  tech  person  05:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This article already uses content from this source in other sections by different editors (see reference 1 of the wiki page, it's the same link).

Unless proven otherwise I am going to revert the changes.


 * If you readd copyvio material you will be blocked. If you find any other copyvios please remove them or at least list them here. The solution to copyvio is not more copyvio. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You mention reference one, but while I'm far from an expert on copyvio matters I see zero evidence of copyvio concerns. Ref a appears to be simply supporting number so inherently no copyvio concerns. I checked keywords in the paragraph supported by ref b and didn't come across any that were particularly similar to the original source. Reference c the only part which seems that similar is "It is currently occupied by four buildings including" which isn't that similar to our text [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Queensbridge&oldid=805886332] and the similarity seems resonably considering it's primarily a statement of fact. The next two sentences are supported by ref d and 2 other references. As with b I'm seeing zero evidence of much similarity at all. I mean "the Falls" name isn't even mentioned at all AFAICT and the only mentions of 2012 are simply mentions of when various permits were issued. If you have come across some text with copyvio concerns, please present it here, and preferably also present the text in the original source that you feel it's a copyright violation of. If you don't understand WP:Copyrights and what a WP:Copyright violation actually is, this is a very serious issue and frankly you probably shouldn't contribute more until you do understand. Using something as a source doesn't mean there are automatically copyright concerns, actually using references without simply copying (or closely paraphrasing) the content is a key part of what wikipedia is. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And a quick check of the text you are adding shows the text you added supported by the same ref above is an exact word for word copy of what is in the document. I didn't check the other text since this was enough to demonstrate there are significant copyvio concerns with the text you are trying to add. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You cannot copy and paste text from that document into the article. What you need to do is use the information contained in that document and rewrite it in your own words. That is how Wikipedia works. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here, as you have already found out. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)