Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project/Archive 1

message: A total of 7 websites are using my work . I wrote this material. Its my work. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to take credit for legitimate work, a person has to provide a verifiable legal name to credit the work to. Fire Star 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I should have said The easiest way to..., which could have made my statement incomplete bilge? ;-) Fire Star 15:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not violating copyright

message: a bare-bones stub. — Davenbelle 09:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:You know, you are converting a well written article into a stub.--Cool Cat My Talk 10:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GAP Project/Temp]] 

message: The copyvio listing for this page was left at Wikipedia:Copyright problems after someone cleared the copyvio tag on Apr. 22.
When I reviewed and cleared the listing on May 4 there were still copyright violations in the article from  eg. But the Southeastern Anatolia Project encompasses more than dams and tunnels.. The violations include full sentances and derived writing.
I reverted to the oldest version that doesn't contain copyright violations (and deleted all other versions.)--Duk 18:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we're sentence nitpicking: "Beyond infrastructure development, the GAP was established to eliminate disparities in the levels of development existing between this region and other regions of Turkey by raising incoming levels and living standards of the people who live in Southeastern Turkey" occurs at  - if we are to believe the Canadian government, that block of text is copyright to the U.S. Government (State Department, PD in other words). The text that is apparently the source of the copyvio, on the other hand, says "The purpose of the GAP is to eliminate disparities in the levels of development existing between this region and other regions of Turkey by raising income levels and living standards of the people who live in Southeastern Turkey." Unless: a. the Canadian government site is lying; b. the State Department violated copyright; or c. both of these organizations happened to use the exact same sentence to describe the exact same thing, it seems that your argument applies for both sides. If you can claim copyright violation on one or two sentences (not even identical sentences, but similar sentences), I can claim PD on this exact phrase, an exact copy of the supposed copyvio material. If one sentence of a publication is PD, I can't see why the other 50 sentences aren't. – ugen64 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can determine that this is derived from PD works, and therefore is mere plagiarism instead of a copyright violation, then by all means, restore the text in question. I would recommend crediting the PD source though. --Duk 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation- AGAIN 

message: I removed the protection from the article. If the revert war continues, another administrator may feel free to restore the protection, but those involved in revert wars should not protect pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gamaliel. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: For anyone unaware; Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#GAP_Project
--Duk 07:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFU 

message: I think having an article on this subject is more important that fighting over whether it's a copyvio or not.
So why not re-write the article so it's no longer a copy vio? I will happily do this on the temp page, as long as I have the agreement of everyone that it will be used. I'm not going to waste my time. Dan100 (Talk) 12:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, unfortunately, after Coolcat rewrote the article (which seems like a waste of time, if he really did write the original work), Duk deleted the entire page because someone forgot to take it off WP:CP and there were several sentences that were, uh... similar... to the original work. – ugen64 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete the entire page, I reverted to the oldest version that was not a copyright violations. Please read the instructions for processing copyright violations (on WP:CP) before criticising my actions. --Duk 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of doing that too - if no one else does so, I may do it in a few days. --SPUI (talk) 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: The point of my long statement way up there about PD sources was not to claim this work was PD - I am quite certain it wasn't derived from a US government publication. I was trying to show you how absurdly stupid Duk's argument is - finding several sentences that are similar to the original work was his argument for deleting the page as a copyvio. I can easily use that same argument to "prove" this material is PD, when it isn't. – ugen64 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can easily use that same argument to "prove" this material is PD, No, you can't--Duk 04:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The argument was not stupid. (1) the article was tagged (2) a random check of text showed positive confirmation. (3) "Proving" PD does not work the way the copyvio is being proved. :It could be an error of judgement, but by no means stupid.  mikka (t) 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it (possible) an error of judgement? Consider the instructions on WP:CP for processing listings.--Duk 02:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My point 

message: ugen64, I don't appreciate the tone of your criticism of my actions on this page.
First: you said that I deleted the article. I didn't, I reverted to the oldest version that didn't contain a copyright violations, per the instructions on WP:CP. I also deleted some history, because CoolCat kept adding copyright violations.
Second: you called my explanation absurdly stupid. It wasn't my explanation, it's the instructions on WP:CP; revert to the latest version that didn't contain a copyright violation. That's what I did. I also deleted some history because CoolCat kept adding copyright violations to the article.
Third: there were several sentences that were, uh... similar. There was about a full paragraph that was almost identically copied. It was the paragraph that started with the sentence that I noted. It was farther on down in the article, I checked it a second time about a week ago, but the history of deleted vs. non-deleted history pages has been scrambled since then.
Fourth: there were several sentences that were, uh... similar. Can you explain to me how big a copyright violation needs to be before we pay attention to it?
Fifth: You are an administrator, . Or are you happier just sitting around criticizing others?
Sixth: ugen64, why don't you spend the next three months processing about a thousand copyvios (like I recently have). I promise that you will have very little tolerance for people who keep committing copyright violations over and over.
Seventh: CooCat is a repeat offender; instead of apologizing after being busted for plagerizing and violating copyrights (Diagnosis Murder and this page), he keeps doing it over and over. And finally does a half assed job re-writing that still contains copyright violations. And when that is dealt with he complains over how he's being mistreated.
ugen64, I did the best that I could to address this repeat copyright violation, per the rules, and with my own judgment to keep it from repeating for a third time. Your comments were mean spirited and in some cases wrong. It's not the duty of the administrator processing copyright violations to edit them out. The pages get reverted or deleted, you should go read these instructions before criticizing the administrators who are actually doing the work.
There are 50 to 100 copyvios a day that need to be processed (they are currently a week behind). Ugen64, perhaps you would like to help clear the backlog. Your help there would be appreciated. I have no plans to do any more work there for a while--Duk 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugen64 

message: Please insert after unprotecting:
* :de:Südostanatolien-Projekt
* :tr:GAP
Pjacobi 10:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
:Done --Pjacobi 11:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
:: You beat me to it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Looking at the identities of those engaged in recent edit warring, I don't think protection is appropriate.  Behave! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: :Article Version 1 looked almost identical to www.adiyamanli.com. While knowing its was on PD I rest my case for that version as I have no way of prooving it's copyright status.
:Article Version 2 had only one paragraph as DUK pointed out. While deleting everything for one paragraph is annoying. Ignore that version as well.
:Article Version 3 has nothing as far as I know identical to the remote page. If so let me know so I can rephrase it. I can rephrase because the material is data. You cannot copyright data. Earth has a certain mass, no one has copyrighted that. I don't think they can either.
I do not want to discuss copy vio status of #1 and #2 because it is not important as I have a rewritten version. Hope this helps. --Cool Cat My Talk 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
::Background
::On June 13 David Gerard un-deleted some versions of the second copyvio deletion (look at the delete history of the GAP Project and this diff, and (I'm guessing) this version). I believe that this accidentally re-introduced a copyvio; second paragraph of the Social Impact Section, starting with the sentence The Southeastern Anatolia Project encompasses more than dams and tunnels. The purpose....  (David, correct me if I'm wrong please). This section is mostly a copy of two paragraphs from adiyamanli.org, which probably copied it from somewhere else. The next day the third-copyvio/revert/deletion/undeletion war started.
::Proposed resolution
::Can I suggest that we restore everything but this paragraph? I believe Coolcat re-wrote this article from scratch and the latest copyvio was an accident from the history undelete on June 13. I'll volunteer to restore the article if no one objects. --Duk 7 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)
::PS. sorry I didn't comment on this earlier, I had been (trying) to avoid this page and didn't realize it was deleted after a third copyvio event until becoming involved in Coolcat's latest RFC.--Duk 7 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
:::I undeleted it after Coolcat asked me to so he could get back his version. Can be redeleted if needed - David Gerard 7 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
*The reason I redeleted it was that, after lengthy discussion on both WP:CP, WP:VFU and the talk page, there was no clarity as to whether or not this is a copyvio. I believe the proper thing to do would be to go to WP:CP and get it verified. A direct copy from any website is likely a copyvio. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 10:59 (UTC)
:*Radiant! thanks for the comments, 1) The article was/is still listed at WP:CP, I've updated the listing. 2) My proposal excludes any previously published material, just the material re-written from scratch by Coolcat. --Duk
**I strongly believe it is imperative we have the latest version back. Anything that is a copy vio can be discussed. I am basicaly blind just like any non-admin. I recomend restore everything prior to last delete. Then you may blank the page and introduce copy vio notice if you really want to. I cannot comment on the material I do not see safely. From what I remember I am certain a copy vio is not the case. --Cool Cat My Talk 7 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
**Radiant! I could get an admin to restore the page, I just want to make sure no admin will ever come up with a copy vio issue as I do not want to get wikipedia in any trobble nor do I want to deal with this issue in the future. That is why I am not bothering admins. I just want to evade any and all conflict. On WP:CP I am linked back here, which is good as this was an on going discussion. --Cool Cat My Talk 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
***Duk's proposal sounds fair, and I'm sorry to put you both through this legal hassle. Radiant_>|< 19:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Duk how about this version? I tweaked it a bit. User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp --Cool Cat My Talk 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looks good.--Duk 19:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification