User talk:Ekaterina Volkova

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Ekaterina Volkova, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:The State Museum of the History of Religion have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) 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.


 * 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 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 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 Copyrights. You may also want to review 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 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 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 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 Translation. See also 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. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 12:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The State Museum of the History of Religion


Hello, Ekaterina Volkova. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The State Museum of the History of Religion".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Let me explain the situation with the page of the State Museum of the Hisrory of Religion. I'm the Head of PR-Dep of the Museum and translated my texts about the Museum history and the description of the museum collection as well. These are texts, which we usually used talking about the museum. So all the materials I've used in translation are public domain. Could I ask you to cancell your removing of the new version of the page? Need I provide some documents or letters from the museum, that I'm the responsible employee for writing the page about the Museum in Wikipedia? Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Ekaterina Volkova (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read what she wrote? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hadn't read it until you brought my attention to it. Unfortunately, she's a new editor and unaware of the need to ping people to let them know they have responded.
 * The source page here is clearly identified at the bottom of the page is subject to full copyright.
 * The specific reversion was in English but presumably a translation of material found here again, clearly identified as subject to full copyright.
 * The statement is made that the material is in the public domain. Can you explain further? I often see such claims and they often turn out to be incorrect. One of the common reasons for an era is unlikely to apply here given your position, but not a lot of material written in the last few decades other than that explicitly identified as public domain (such as by employees of the US federal government) is actually in the public domain. We need to have a better staining of how this material came to be considered public domain.
 * Additionally, even if we can resolve the copyright issues there are other extremely important issues. Material in the public domain can be used but it still needs to be supported by published reliable sources that are independent of the underlying subject. Material about a museum created by the head of PR at the Museum can be released into the public domain but it won't qualify as independent. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , See above S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement is made that the material is in the public domain. Can you explain further? I often see such claims and they often turn out to be incorrect. One of the common reasons for an era is unlikely to apply here given your position, but not a lot of material written in the last few decades other than that explicitly identified as public domain (such as by employees of the US federal government) is actually in the public domain. We need to have a better staining of how this material came to be considered public domain.
 * Additionally, even if we can resolve the copyright issues there are other extremely important issues. Material in the public domain can be used but it still needs to be supported by published reliable sources that are independent of the underlying subject. Material about a museum created by the head of PR at the Museum can be released into the public domain but it won't qualify as independent. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , See above S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , See above S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)