User talk:Smkolins/Archives/2016/March

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kahlil Gibran into The Prophet (book). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Diannaa, I'm confused. A trivial inspection shows I included citations. And copying was not extensive. I always cite.--Smkolins (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see that you cited sources. However, when you copy prose from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is required by the terms of the Wikipedia CC-by-SA license. At a minimum, you need to state in your edit summary which article you copied from. A sample edit summary is . For more extensive copying, you should place the copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination articles. — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So this is some new rule. Great….I'll try to keep up. It is rare i copy but I'll try to remember.--Smkolins (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Diannaa Actually there is one class of articles or patterns where copying was normal - I did a lot of Baha'i Faith in a country articles and the leade summary would often be copied in the Religion of a country article if there was due weight for it. And there are grouping articles of Baha'i Faith by continent with similar sections. And here's a thought - if I copy from an independent wiki but with the same licensing scheme I have to put attribution similarly is that within the scope of what is being asked for? However some of this content ranges back a decade (yes 10 years, thank you) and could easily have evolved since then. Does that still count? Well that's going to be a bit of work.(sigh)--Smkolins (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I see "If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." and that is by far most often the case even in the present case. --Smkolins (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically yeah, you should have provided attribution in each instance where you copied from one Wikipedia article to another. The only exception is where you wrote the content at the source article as well (though my preference is to do it regardless, so that people know for sure what's going on. A bot reported your edit, and it simplifies my checking of these reports if the edit summary is provided for each instance of copying within Wikipedia, and will save you from receiving further redundant reminders). For external sources that are available under a compatible license, I do the attribution like you see here (look in the References section). For public domain material, there's a template, which you should place immediately after your citation. For an example of how to do it, see the second citation in the article Field ration. — Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)