User talk:2A1ZA

August 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Turkish military operation in Afrin. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy and copyright law. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Diannaa, of course I do intend to play by the rules and not "add copyrighted material" as understood by WP:COPYVIO to the Wikipedia. Actually I am very surprised about this allegation now. As you appear to refer to that brief sentence on AI on Afrin from August, I will happily adhere to an interpretation of yours where this would cross a WP:COPYVIO line. But let med add that under this standard, you would have to remove half of that article concerned, and a considerable part of the Wikipedia with it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The Amnesty report in question is here and the DW source I referenced is here. What I certainly have to do, for one accurate sentence carrying the substance of information concerned, is to mention the date, mention "Amnesty International", quote the central term "free rein" (in quotation marks) by Turkish forces in the theater respective Turkey, and to name the violations concerned according to the source because these are technical legal terms (for which I could of course also use quotation marks). So would In August 2018, according to Amnesty International, Turkish forces gave "free rein" to their TFSA allies to make residents of Afrin suffer violations including "arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and confiscation of property and looting".? Or do you think that is still too close to the phrasing the sources use? --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you had placed the edit in quotation marks you would not have been blocked. But placing everything in quotation marks is not a good solution. It's important that everything you add here, as much as possible, is written in your own words. Copying the sentence structure of the source document and substituting a few words is still plagiarism. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Also Plagiarism and FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As you address details of the edit in question here, I am pretty sure that I did put "free rein" (the central term) in quotation marks. The reason why I did not do the same for the enumeration of concrete violations was that I used a secondary source, as Wikipedia recommends, which however did not carry the enumeration literally from the Amnesty original, so I would not put this part in quotation marks as it was not verbatim in the referenced source (my suggestion above entails referencing both sources, so this enumeration could then be direct quote). Next, the term "Syrian rebels", which Amnesty uses (as well as the secondary source), is a bit awkward here to people knowledgeable to the Syrian Civil War. I still carried that term, because I knew that any change would meet fierce protest from other editors, depending on what other term with a necessarily somewhat different connotation I would use (my best faith suggestion above for alternative phrasing is "their TFSA allies"). I did briefly consider changing the sequence of elements of the sentence, but putting Turkey to the end would have been unfaithful to the sources, which primarily directed the accusation at Turkey, not at the "rebels". Cheers -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, thank you for those kind considerations. However, whenever or if ever you would unblock my account, there is one other thing which is important to me. It is all irrespective of WP:COPYVIO, your work as a guardian of it, and any question of how to best balance the desire for unique phrasing in the Wikipedia with terminological accuracy and faithfulness to the sources. It concerns a thing very different from WP:COPYVIO, namely actual copyright law. Right here on this page, you accuse me of violating copyright law, and I am sure we both know very well that this accusation is wrong, as nothing in question here reaches copyright threshold. I would kindly ask you to remove this accusation from this page or at least use a strikethrough. This is a serious concern to me, and I very kindly ask you to consider my friendly request. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I would also like to add that 2A1ZA has been reverting my edits since the past days without reason. I believe the user is a harm to Wikipedia policy by vandalizing and removing sourced information. Thanks for the blocking. Marjdabi (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Source webpage: "Amnesty International says Turkish forces in the northern Syrian city of Afrin are giving Syrian militias "free rein" to commit serious human rights abuses. The group alleges torture, forced disappearances and looting."
 * Your edit: "In August 2018, Amnesty International said that Turkey and its military forces were giving Syrian militias "free rein" to commit serious human rights abuses, among them torture, forced disappearances and looting." The overlapping material is in bold. This is above the threshold as to what is considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is technically a violation of copyright law or not is immaterial, as you were blocked not for that but for violations of the Wikipedia copyright policy, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. We do interpret copyright more strictly than other websites. You can find answers to the "question of how to best balance the desire for unique phrasing in the Wikipedia with terminological accuracy and faithfulness to the sources" in the linked reading material in my previous post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have struck out "copyright law" from my paragraph directly below the block notice, since you weren't actually blocked for that. Thanks for the feedback. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another policy page you might find useful or informative: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. (As a longtime editor, I do of course know WP:COPYVIO, I asked for this with a view on third parties.) Adding to my thanks for this, while you know that I do have some doubts on the wisdom of details of WP:COPYVIO respective its implementation for too much diluting accuracy/quality and faithfulness to the sources (while still always intending to stick to it when editing, of course), and yesterday while catching a glimpse on your edit diffs in the Turkey crisis article felt like wishing to say very much about them, I am tremendously impressed by the amount of time and diligent effort you put into this, including this clarification for third parties here I had asked for. Thank you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For your information
User:Marjdabi is also very pushy on Talk:2016–present purges in Turkey and its article (see history), pushing for an early renaming as "2016-2018 [and finished]". I am are starting to monitor his edits. Yug (talk)  18:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Afrin Region


A tag has been placed on Category:Afrin Region requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jazira Region


A tag has been placed on Category:Jazira Region requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Euphrates Region


A tag has been placed on Category:Euphrates Region requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)