This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
As part of a check on my previous edits I've noticed that this article contains at least one match to a source (see here). This was added in this edit. I haven't had time to check other sources but a lot of paragraphs look probable candidates for similar copying. QuiteUnusualTalkQu 14:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned the paraphrasing I identified across all the sources linked to the article. Hopefully it is good now but others may wish to check too - thanks QuiteUnusualTalkQu 09:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got that completely wrong, QuiteUnusual! There hasn't been any copying because i wrote the text in question here originally and i provided it to ukriversguidebook as a correction to what they had there previously. I never assigned copyright to ukriversguidebook so i'm entitled to use that text anywhere i like. I've reinstated my original text. Also, i don't understand why you removed the reference to Heybridge Creek in the history section, but i've put it back in a more or less similar form. WillKemp (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence that you own the copyright, the precautionary principle applies and you cannot incorporate the text into Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online on the procedure you will need to follow. It isn't clear from the source that it was originally taken from Wikipedia or that you have any ownership, not least because it names two authors. Also, you note that you wrote the material originally - it rather looks like original research now because you are in effect citing something you made up yourself, not citing a reliable source, so that's another reason the material is questionable. Isn't there an independent source you can use? If we agree you own the copyright in the words we'd still need to find a reference that supported the material because at the moment you are effectively using Wikipedia (the material you copied from here to the guide book) as evidence to support material in Wikipedia. "It is true because I say it is", if you see what I mean QuiteUnusualTalkQu 10:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's ok. As far as i remember, the citation was originally put there by the person who wrote that part in the first place, but what they wrote was wrong - because the material they were citing was wrong. When i corrected it i left the citation there, as i'd also supplied a correction to the article that was cited - and because the cited article was the source for other (correct) information in that paragraph. I guess the best solution for this issue would be for someone (other than me) to rewrite what i wrote in a slightly different way and then add the citation back... WillKemp (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Heybridge Creek point because there is no evidence that this is true - no citation supported it. As a compromise, why don't we leave the whole sentence in for now as I see no reason to assume you didn't originally copy it from Wikipedia. But, the citation really needs to be removed because it isn't correct to give the impression that there is a reliable independent source that supports this sentence. I've removed the reference, and replaced it with a citation needed tag. How's that? QuiteUnusualTalkQu 10:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you went through Wikipedia removing everything that wasn't supported by citations, there wouldn't be much left! Take, for example, the assertion that "London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom" in the article on London - where's the citation for that statement? There isn't one! Almost everything i added to this article has reasonably good citation support, is it really worth quibbling over one or two uncontentious things that don't have citations? I often go through articles that other people have written, find supporting documentation for what they've written, and add citations - because i think it's good to have citations where possible. But sometimes the material just isn't there - or isn't sufficiently easy to find to make the effort worthwhile for some minor and fairly insignificant point. I could probably find some reference material to support my claim that the Blackwater is called "Heybridge Creek" where it flows through Heybridge - and i may do that one day when i have the time - but it's so minor (and so completely uncontestable) that it's not high on my list of priorities. WillKemp (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what your problem is exactly. The policy on Wikipedia regarding citation is absolutely clear - no content without citation. Just because other stuff exists that isn't cited isn't a reason to accept it is okay. Nobody is asking you to do anything and the content you are discussing remains in the article. Could you clarify what you appear to be angry about? QuiteUnusualTalkQu 09:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got a problem and i'm not angry. I thought i was just participating in a discussion - and i was explaining why i'd edited the article the way i did. WillKemp (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
