User talk:SDLepore

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello SDLepore, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Leaving group 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Leaving group. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. DMacks (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. I hope this message will reach you.

My content was previously removed from "Leaving Group" since it was similar to published work (which is actually one of my peer reviewed publications). As an expert in this area, I then wrote new content and artwork, which is substantially different from anything published. I was surprised to see even this new content removed.

The paper that I have cited in my contribution to "Leaving Group" that may pose a copyright violation is actually publicly available on the NIH website (PMCID: PMC2703564). Would it help matters if I cited this link?

Please let me know.

Regards, Salvatore Lepore


 * (1) Did you asssign the copyright/an exclusive licence to the journal when you published the article? (2) The level/content of writing we are aiming at is similar to review articles for non-specialists. If you aren't already, please familiarize yourself with No original research. MER-C 02:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Salvator,
 * The problem is as MER-C notes below...just because you wrote it originally, or just because it is freely available, doesn't mean you still can use it as you wish or that it is "free enough" to re-post here. Otherwise I could download any journal article from any journal's website and post it anywhere, with complete disregard for copyright, because "it was publicly available". Wikipedia isn't like a preprint/reprint server, and NIH only has permission to host for personal viewing, not to allow others to download and do whatever they want afterwards. has a link to a copyright statement that is fairly restrictive.
 * I love seeing expansion of our organic chemistry content (and think both allenes and certain specialty topics of protecting groups are important topics in their own separate ways). But we really do need to be mindful of target audience being mostly non-experts. So we can certainly include advanced details, but need to include enough surrounding context (or links to articles on them) and introduction, unlike writing a Chem.Rev. article. Note that MER-C and I are posting our replies in chromological order, not "top-posting" newer responses...that's one of wikipedia discussion standards. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The block has expired. MER-C 05:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi MER-C and DMacks,
 * Happy New Year!
 * Thanks for your feedback and insights.
 * I have become interested in adding Organic Chemistry content to Wikipedia to help open up the field and make known the exciting breakthroughs. I also find myself and my students (even graduate level) using Wikipedia more frequently to get some background before starting project. I feel compelled to "give back". I thought the best way to start was in my area of specialization, but this seems to have backfired somewhat. Perhaps I'm too close to the subject matter.
 * My revised "Leaving Group" post was intended to be a simplified rendition of the concepts that appeared in the cited article. The only thing similar to the article was a chemistry structure in my Wikipedia scheme. However, I could modify this structure as well if you feel that a copyright infringement is at stake.
 * I see your point on being mindful of the target audience. A lifetime of writing for specialists is a habit hard to break. I'll give the "Leaving Group" and "Allene" write-ups another shot. Is there some way that I could solicit your critique before posting?
 * To respond to MER-C's mention of "no original research" policy, I note that the subject matter that I would like to present in "Leaving Group" and "Allene" is entirely peer-reviewed science.
 * Thank you again.
 * Regards,
 * Salvatore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.7.56 (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)