Talk:Bioversity International

message: Thanks for including this site in the WikiProject Agriculture. I'd be happy to try and change the article, but without sonsiderably more detail than is contained in the definition of a Start Quality article, I have no idea what is required. The sources and citations are there. I've seen other organizations penalized for using material from their own websites. Lets have some concrete suggestions.
JeremyCherfas (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:COI as well as guides to acceptable referencing. Articles MUST be referenced to third party publications independent of the subject, and cannot contain copyrighted material.  By pasting copyrighted content here, you are licensing it for unlimited commercial use and reuse/editing by anyone at any time, forever.  This is legally in violation of this organization's own web copyright statement.  Per COI, you really should not be working on the article about your employer, especially as the main/only contributor on the subject. T L Miles (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: This article, as well as the 16 articles on CGIAR and its sub entities in the article's infobox, appear to have been copied directly from their websites, and are written like adverts.  I've totally rewritten one, but most need to be removed and rewritten for copyvio alone, not to mention the fact that they are all incredibly POV.  
If you're looking for a research project, here's a good one.  I'm also removing the "start" tag from these articles, as an unreferenced copyvio doesn't meet "start" criteria.  T L Miles (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Single source / Press release /copypaste

message: In what sense does the original material "read like an advert"? It is not quite copy/pasted from the original website, but as that website tries simply to explain what Bioversity is, what it does, and a bit of its history, I am at a loss to understand the problem. I state clearly that while I am employed by Bioversity, I am happy to corroborate any claims made. So, what's the issue? Why shouldn't Wikipedia contain this sort of information?
Nobody else seems willing to take up your proposal of a "research project", so in the meantime, why not let the information stand?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyCherfas (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Help me to understand

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: official sites. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed