User talk:SecretariatCCIVS

Welcome
Hello SecretariatCCIVS. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SecretariatCCIVS. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To explain this further - you were given links to our COI and PAID policy pages, but continued editing an article where you had a conflict - even if the material had not been a copyright violation, you should not be editing the article. If you request an unblock, be sure to demonstrate that you have read and understood those policies, and WP:COPYVIO, and that you explain how you should request that edits should be made in future. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please explain - your userpage seems to indicate that you are employed by them, and your username seems unambiguously to represent a role in the organisation. What is your relationship with them? Also, your unblock request also fails to address the copyright violations, or give any indication that you have read and understood the policies you were directed to. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am volunteer EVS of one partner organisation. I am asking for information about the copyright violations as it is information from their website and I have permission to use it.
 * I've refactored your response slightly - you don't need to add a new unblock request each time you respond. Please can you explain what a volunteer EVS is - what does EVS stand for? Have you been asked by someone employed by the organisation to add this information? With regards to the copyvio, I know that it came from their website: they would need to formally issue an appropriate licence before it could be published here. There are instructions on how they can do that at WP:COPYVIO. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I just looked more closely at the content that you were adding, and I'd advise you that there is no point in going down the road of issuing a licence for us to use it - the prose is highly promotional, and would not be suitable for an encyclopedic article. In general terms, we are interested in what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about organisations, not what they say about themselves. If you still wish to be unblocked, please respond to the questions above. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience. EVS answers to European Voluntary Service (also know as ESC European Solidarity Corps, a programme funded by Erasmus+). "EVS is a program for young people between 18 and 30 years old. The program covers all the costs and provide you an unbelievable experience which allows you to improve your soft skills". As I said before, other organisations like Service Civil International have their information updated but CCIVS doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretariatCCIVS (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Organizations do not often "have their information updated". Typically, articles are updated by independent volunteer editors choosing to write about a topic.  In some cases, a representative of an organization can make formal edit requests for changes.  Users with a conflict of interest should do that and avoid directly editing relevant articles. Please understand that Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject, not what the subject wants to say about itself(which is what you attempted to add). Wikipedia articles- while we strive to be accurate- are not meant as sources of up to the minute current information and are not for organizations to tell about themselves. That's what an organization's own website is for. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say that you don't represent them, do you mean that they have not instructed you to edit for them? They seem to be aware of what you are doing.  Whether you are a formal representative or not, you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Who provided that permission, what is their position in the organization, and may we see that permission? User talk:Jeff G. and this edit provide further background.  — Jeff G. ツ 06:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello SecretariatCCIVS, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to CCIVS 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. — Jeff G. ツ 08:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)