User talk:Graptaloyia

License tagging for File:Marlow Navigation Building, Head office, Cyprus.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Marlow Navigation Building, Head office, Cyprus.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Marlow Navigation Building Head office Cyprus.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Marlow Navigation Building Head office Cyprus.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing copyright infringement
I see that you have again posted the article Crew Management, the text of which is mostly made up of content copied directly from other sources. Here are just three example quotes: the page http://marlow-navigation.com/en/what-is-crew-management-services.html contains the text "incorporates a variety of activities handled by crew management companies and their manning agencies"; the article you created contained "incorporates a variety of activities handled by crew management companies (or crew managers) and their manning agencies". The same source contained "This includes the sourcing, recruitment, selection, deployment, scheduling, training/upgrading programs, and on-going management of seafarers engaged on vessels under crew management contracts"; the article you created contained "This includes the sourcing, recruitment, selection, deployment, scheduling, training/upgrading programs, and on-going management of seafarers – officers and ratings – engaged on vessels under crew management contracts." The page http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade/number-and-nationality-of-world's-seafarers contained "The worldwide population of seafarers serving on internationally trading merchant ships is estimated to be in the order of 466,000 officers and 721,000 ratings"; the article you created contained "The worldwide population of seafarers serving on internationally trading merchant ships is estimated to be in the order of 466,000 officers and 721,000 ratings". In all of those cases you use wording taken directly, word-for-word, from the sources, the only changes you made being the addition of parenthetical glosses ("or crew managers" and "officers and ratings") embedded within sentences which were otherwise copied without change. On my talk page you wrote "These industry organisations would encourage this". That may or may not be true, but if they wish to license the contents of their web pages for free reuse by anyone in the world, unchanged or edited in any way whatever, for any purpose, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia (as you claim is done by posting to Wikipedia) then they need to say so, and you need to show us that they have said so: we don't assume that they have done because somebody who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so, without providing evidence. Wikipedia policy is that evidence of licensing of content must be provided for copied content to be accepted: we don't wait for copyright owners to complain. The page will be deleted again: please do not restore the content in question without providing proof that it is licensed for free use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (which is highly unlikely in the case of contents of a page bearing the notice "©2015-2016 Marlow Navigation All Rights Reserved"). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you've removed the close paraphrasing tags, which I added to give you a chance to put it right. Off to speedy deletion it goes then. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You are being very irrational and simply on a malicious agenda, for whatever reason. This is the case, as this content is unique written by this contributor. Please stop, otherwise you shall be reported for this. Graptaloyia (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How you can continue to claim that the content is written by you, when you have been given several direct quotes showing that you used identical wording to that in sources, I cannot understand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

How can you continue to take this stance if you do not understand? Wikipedia is full of material taken from other sources, collated and integrated. It is known as intertexuality. If all articles relied on only material uniquely written by users, then it would all be heresay and pure fantasy; and Wikipedia would loose its credibility. If the material is cited, then the content is acknowledging the source for the reader, who can link there for more information. Hence offering credibility. We are speaking here about a definition of a phrase and industry, which should remain accurate and in line with what it is, and not simply re-word it entirely, as this changes the meaning. We are also speaking about factual information revealed by industry bodies, which should stay as so and not altered.

As you are aware, after posting my last message on this page (which you have subsequently removed) I checked your editing history, and found further similar copyright infringements, dating back to 2014, so I reverted those. You then reinstated them. It seems probable that all of your copyright infringements were in the first instance done in good faith, very probably in the sincere belief that copyright does not apply provided you give a reference to the place where you copied the content from. However, continuing to restore copyright infringing content now that the situation has been explained to you is a different matter. You have previously been informed that persistent copyright infringement can lead to being blocked from editing, and you have now been blocked for 36 hours. Please read Copyrights and Copyright violations, and make sure you avoid making the same mistakes after the block expires.. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hiccup, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)