User talk:Kery sprm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Kery sprm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jncraton (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission[edit]

I noticed you edited the page Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission many times recently. Please try to make more constructive edits before saving. If you have a question as to what they will look like, use the preview button. --RichardMills65 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

Hi.... I looked at your talk page and didn't see any warnings that YOU have violated copyright, but there is a tag on the article you've been editing that says that parts of the article appear to have been taken directly from another web page. This is a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

All of the information in articles comes from other places on the web or in print or other media. But to copy and paste directly from those sources violates copyright laws. As the tag on the page says, it's best to rewrite the material in your own words so that you're not violating laws.

ps. Wikipedia is not censored at all, but a lot of editors don't care for profanity. Just sayin'.. :)

If I can be of any more help, please let me know. Just click on 'Talk' after my name.

Wikipelli Talk 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

To Wikipelli[edit]

Hi and thanks for your reply, firstly I would like to apologize for using profanity on my last message, I was angry, tired and upset at the time, I sincerely apologize. Secondly, in regards to the Wiki page concerning the MACC, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, it is now flagged with a message that it is under investigation for copyright infringement, which is in turn making me more stressed and upset, You see, I work for the MACC, media department, and responsible for all of its social media, online etc. I was assigned to edit the previous MACC Wikipedia page because it was outdated, and so there I was, editing the page, renewing it. I admit that all of the facts, articles that i put on the page was copy-pasted, that is true, however, the source which I copy-pasted those facts and articles are directly from the MACC website, http://www.sprm.gov.my, which is the organization I work at, and the sole source of all the facts and articles. I did however referenced the website on the Wiki page, but, the wikipedia still accuses me of copyright infringement, and demanded that I rewrite or rephrase the facts. So I did, but still Wikipedia detected that I was plagiarizing, I spent hours rephrasing and rewriting, but Wikipedia still gives me an error that I plagiarize, of course I was agitated.

I would really appreciate it if you could help me with this problem, I have already explained my stand at the article discussion page, and submit the page for investigation, I am really hoping that you or anyone can help me with this, as this is part of my job, and I hope that this issue can be resolved as soon as possible.


Copyright problem: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kery sprm (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kery sprm... Don't be discouraged by the warnings and notices. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines about how articles are written and copyright violations are taken very seriously. There are a couple of issues here that you need to be aware of:
  1. It is not enough to simply state that you work for the organization and you have their permission. Obviously, there is no way to verify that information. Anyone would be able to say that.
  2. You can provide evidence (see the notice) from the organization that proves that you have permission to use the material but, be aware, that this permission would include the understanding that, once on Wikipedia, the information will carry the Wikipedia license and thus be freely used.(I believe this is correct but I'm going to have to read up on it. If another, more knowledgeable editor is reading this, can you confirm?)
  3. As an employee (especially one charged with the task of writing/re-writing the article) you have a conflict of interest. In other words, your relationship with the organization would make it difficult to write a neutral article. It's not impossible, but it is something that is not encouraged.
I left a message on the article's talk page suggesting that your edits be taken off and the article left at the point before you edited. If that's acceptable (I have to confess that it's the first time I've seen such a notice), additions can be made to the article that are not in violation of copyright.
I would suggest that you spend some time looking over the notice on the article and following the links to discover what the applicable rules and policies are and ways to correct the mistakes. I'm happy to help if I can. I've put the article on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on how things progress. Wikipelli Talk 13:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand[edit]

Dear Wikipelli, I understand the complications regarding Wikipedia's strict rules and guidelines about copy pasting, and I do understand that there is no sure method of proving that I am working for the organization, if there are such a way, please just let me know how. I also understand that, as an employee of the organization, I do have the conflict of interest in editing the organization's Wikipedia page, in writing a neutral article. However, I must justify that the previous Wikipage about the organization was written by an unknown contributor, and that too have the suspicion in the article being a neutral one. I have explained in my earlier messages, consistently, that I am merely editing the Wikipage by copying information, facts and articles directly from the organization's website. I may have altered a few information in the original Wikipage, but in my defense, the alterations that I made was because I was simply renewing or updating the information because the original page was out-dated.

I understand that this problem have many complications, and I sincerely appreciate your help, thank you by the way, and I agree with your suggestion that the article be in its original point before the edit. In its original state, before the edits, if it is acceptable, that I will be given the permission to edit it of course, the only editing that I will do is I will only ADD information to the article, WITHOUT ALTERING any of the original article on the page, at all, just merely ADDING more and new information, in advance, the informations that I will add to the article will be directly from the organization's website, the sole and only source. I hope that this is clarified and does not create any confusion.

I really appreciate you help and hope that this matter can be resolved as soon as possible. Thank You. Kery sprm (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message[edit]

Hello, Kery sprm. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission[edit]

I've reverted this page to the version with just the copyvio tag and with a blank page. Please don't revert this as that is likely to see you blocked for reasons I explain below.

You have admitted taking some or all of what you added to the article from a website. As such we can not accept it as we must assume it is a copyright violation. This is necessary because, at the moment, we have no way of verifying you are who you say you are and so we cannot verify that you have permission to post this material. To verify that you do have permission to post this material you must follow the procedures at WP:DCM#Granting us permission to copy material already online. Until this is done we must assume that the material is a copyright violation. If you continue to introduce the information before you have proved permission you will be blocked to safe guard the encyclopaedia as we cannot host copyrighted material.

You and your organization should also be aware of what such a release means. You will not only be giving permission to wikipedia to use and modify the text but also giving everyone else permission to use and modify the text provided it is properly attributed. This is also explained in more detail in the above link.

You should also be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines you have been pointed at in a previous post. Even if we receive permission we may not be able to use all, or indeed, any of the text if it does not meet our other guidelines such as WP:NPOV.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask them here or on my talk page but please do no re-insert the material. Indeed to be on the safe side I'd refrain from editing the article at all until this situation is sorted. Dpmuk (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Dpmuk,

I understand where you are coming from, and the reasons why you are doing it. I did admit that I have copy pasted most of the information I posted on this article from another website, I am not denying that. But you also must understand what was the cause of this problem, the copyright violation happened in the first place. Please bear with me as I explain, as I have done so many times, I really hope that this time you and the other admins will understand it clearly. The first original page of this article was done or contributed by an unknown, I could not find the original author, but it was believed to be 6 years ago or so, I am not sure. By the way, the organization changed its power structure 2 years ago, so, a lot can happen in 2 years, and I was just merely updating the article. When I started my editing,

  • I may have changed or corrected a few words of the original article BUT I did NOT delete any or change the structure of the articles.
  • I did copy pasted the newly added informations from a website, the organizations official and only website.
  • I did referenced the informations, listing the website as the reference. And everytime I click save page, there was no error report or any messages saying that I have committed copyright violation.
  • I was almost finished and then I got a message saying that this article was in suspicion of copyright violation. I nonetheless continue to edit is as I taught I would handle it later when I am finished.
  • As I've finished my editing, I proceed to correct the duplication error report, It took me a while, until I finally discovered what was the source of the problem. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, the error report told me that I have copy pasted A PARAGRAPH, a single paragraph from this website which I have never even heard of plus been to, http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html, the whole copyright violation error that I was accused of started because of this. I was supposed to reference that website in the reference section but I didn't. Of course I didn't, because I did not copy paste the information from that website, and because that website has no affiliations with the organization.
  • So I decided to paraphrase, but before I could finish what I was doing, the page has already been blocked. I did noticed that all of the other informations that I copy pasted from the organization's official website showed no error, no copyright violation, because I HAVE referenced the organization's official website. But because of one paragraph, and a completely random, unknown website, the page was blocked.
  • I did identify myself as an employee of the organization, but like you said there was no sure way of verifying who I say I am, I understand, and I have talked to my superiors about this, about allowing permission for wikipedia and other people to modify the informations at the original website. But they have decided that, it is not acceptable as the website is a government protected website, the property of the government, so they cannot allow it to be easily accessed and modified. But they did state that as long as I referenced the website at wikipedia, then there would be no problem. I did. I did referenced the website, the official website.

Yesterday, the page was no longer blocked, thanks to user RA0808, who was kind enough to help me, and understand my situation. I have considered the matter to be resolved and that there will be no more issues, and I can continue doing what I first set out to do. So today, I started to edit the page, copy pasting the informations as I did before from the organization's website, without forgetting to referenced the website as the source, I did referenced it. Halfway through, minutes before this reply, I receive a message from you, saying that you have blocked it again. Can you understand what I am going through? How frustrated I am? No disrespect to you, but you have just recreated an issue that was already solved, the same excuse of copyright violation, while I have thoroughly explained myself over and over again, that I did not commit any copyright violations, I did NOT copy pasted from this website http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html, thats why I didn't referenced it, I copy pasted from this website http://www.sprm.gov.my/, and I referenced it as the source, which is why I never received any error(duplication detector errors, admin error/complaints) from Wikipedia saying I committed plagiarism, but I did receive one saying the mentioned fact because of the unknown website. It is not plagiarism if you cited the source or referenced it, am I right?

Do you understand now? Or do I have to explain my self further. Just a couple hours ago, I was editing the page, doing the same thing, with referencing the official website, I did not receive any error report, at all. Frankly speaking, I am tired of all this explaining, over and over again, so here's what I'll do; I really hope that you and all the other admins understand where I am standing, as I have explained myself, and if you do agree with me that I've done nothing wrong, you will unblock the page to allow me to complete my task, or if so you and the other admins decide that I am still wrong no matter what I've said and explained, then delete the page, don't hold or block it for investigation whatsoever, because I can honestly say that other than myself and my superiors(which is unlikely), there will be no one else that's going to solve the issue. Delete it immediately if that's what you decide.

Thank you very much. Kery sprm (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kery sprm... The main thing that is still going wrong is where you say you, "started to edit the page, copy pasting the informations as I did before from the organization's website". You cannot copy/paste from ANY website - whether you have permission or not and whether you reference the site or not. What you add to Wikipedia must be in your own words. That means that you can use the government website as a resource, and you should certainly cite the page as the source of your information, but the writing must be your own. Please have a look at this page. Even if you work for the organization, even if they have given permission, even if the site is out there for all to see and read.. You cannot copy/paste from it. It must be rewritten in your words.
I would suggest that you create a sandbox in your userspace (you can create it by clicking here. The 'sandbox' is a place for you to work on articles, practicing editing, etc. and it is not part of the encyclopedia. When you have written the article, I'll be happy to look it over if you wish before adding it to the article. Wikipelli Talk 12:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right I think I understand why your confused now and there are two separate but related reasons. Firstly, the concern isn't that you are copying from http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html but rather that you admit to copying from http://www.sprm.gov.my/. The first site is likely not a concern but the second is. Secondly, your right when you say that copying from the second site (http://www.sprm.gov.my/) isn't plagiarism if you reference the site but it can still be a copyright problem. These two issues are confused by many editors buy in reality they are two entirely separate, if related, issues. I suggest you read the documents at those two links to fully understand the difference but in short when someone creates a work they automatically have copyright in that work and get to control what happens to it, including whether it can be copied. This is a legal issue that is separate from plagiarism and simply referencing the site does not allow you to copy and paste text from it. As such we need proof that you have permission to copy text from http://www.sprm.gov.my/ for the reasons I explain above as currently the site does not have anything that says we can use the text - indeed the "@ 2010 Hak Cipta Terpelihara" seems to suggest we can't.
You should also be aware that just because you don't get a warning that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong. Such warnings are placed either by a human or a bot after you placed the text and it is quite possible that neither notice the problem when you first insert the text.
Finally I should point out that wikipelli is mistaken in what they say above. Copying from other websites is definitely sometimes allowed but we need permission to do so (with a couple of exceptions that don't apply here so I won't confuse matters by giving them). Even if we have permission, and so are allowed to copy and paste, it can often be inappropriate to use the text for other reasons such as our neutral point of view policy so be aware that even if you get permission to use the text the normal editing process may decide it is still inappropriate to use it.
I hope that helps clears up the issues but feel free to ask me any more questions you may have. Dpmuk (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read your reply to wikipelli, I'll add some more. You also seem to be confused by how we want permission verified. When it says we want a notice on the original page that means we need a notice on http://www.sprm.gov.my/ not wikipedia. As you have made clear above that such permission will not be forthcoming we can not use the text. Dpmuk (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction, Dpmuk, you are quite right. There are instances where copy/pasting is permitted. I should not have left that out. Wikipelli Talk 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dpmuk,

Thank you for that piece of information and thank you Wikipelli as well, thanks to the both of you, I now clearly understand what is the actual problem, that I can't directly copy paste from a website, even if I referenced it, someone should really make that very clear to academicians, students etc. As of right now, I m really not sure on how I should proceed with this. My superiors have various suggestions, some suggests that the administrators delete the page entirely. But I might end up having to make a new page, write everything from scratch in my own words, being ordered by my superiors of course, that is a lot of work I am not ready to go through. Other suggestions is that you revert the page to its original version, and you allow me to edit it with your supervision, or any other admins, seeing it time to time, correcting my mistakes if any, minus the blocking thing. I don't really have a lot of time to spare to read all of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, terms, (I have read a few) so right now, I just would like to know what is your suggestion, and Wikipelli, your's too as well, just tell me how I can write the article.

Kery sprm (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry... we'll get there!  :) It is sometimes confusing with the rules and regulations. I think you're beginning to see why they are in place, though. The other thing that is probably giving you stress is that you're feeling pressure at work to improve the article. That doesn't make for the best situation. I hope that you're employers are aware of that, also!
My suggestion to you still stands. I believe that there is new information that can be added to the article and you are free to do so now. After conversations with Dpmuk on my talk page, I have now restored the article to the state before you started editing. Now, with an understanding of policies, you can begin again to improve the article and include new information.
Unfortunately, it's not easy just to 'delete the article'. The article is part of Wikipedia and generally articles can't be deleted because someone wants it deleted. If the subject is notable, then there is really no reason not to have it. This article has been around for many years so deleting it would be difficult. Wikipelli Talk 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipelli,

Again, Thank you. Thank you Dpmuk as well, both of you have been a great help. I'll get started on editing the article, please check on it from time to time, and if there are any mistakes, feel free to comment and talk to me so that I can amend to it. I can admit to my own mistakes and criticism, but the thing that frustrates me most is when I am not allowed to explain why I make those mistakes. Anyways, I would like to thank the both of you again, thank you very much for helping me, giving me advice and pointing out my mistakes. I hope that the both of you as well as all the other admins keep doing so while I edit the article. By the way, I am quite amazed by what you guys are doing here at Wikipedia, its really great.

Thank you again Kery sprm (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Kery.. and, I'm sure I speak for Dpmuk, also, it's not what we're doing.. it's what a large number of people are doing that makes Wikipedia work. You, included! There's new users all the time that have a lot to contribute.
Anyway, I'll leave the article on my watchlist and check it when there are changes. If you have questions or problems, please feel free to contact me and I'll see what I can do. I'm not the most knowledgable person around, but I'll be happy to tackle whatever problems you might run into. I'm sure between the two of us, we'll figure it out! Good luck! Wikipelli Talk 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to this sooner - yesterday turned out to be a much busier day than I was expecting. Anyway it's not a problem. Woking mainly in copyright problems, as I do, I'm more often than not deleting text and irritating users so it's always nice when I can help guide someone towards becoming a productive editor. I hope none of this experience puts you off. It's probably also worth adding that most new editor mistakes would not have been dealt with as "harshly" as this but due to the possible legal implications of copyright problems we can't give new editors as much leeway in this area as we normally would - as an example I wouldn't even have been thinking of blocking you if you had been making mistakes in formatting or the like. Any page I edit will normally stay on my watchlist for at least two months so I'll also do my best to keep my eye on it. If you have any future questions about wikipedia please do not hesitate to ask me - if I don't know the answer I would still very likely be able to point you somewhere that you can get the answer. Dpmuk (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kery_sprm&oldid=1082368831"