User talk:Erinchia0617

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Erinchia0617, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Building information modeling have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building information modeling - own research? Ongoing copyright violations

Hello Erinchia0617, thank you for your interest in improving this article. But I hope you don't mind me asking, are you one of the research paper's authors? Please note that Wikipedia should not be used to publish or popularize an editor's own research (see WP:SELFCITE for more information). It should also not present "new trends" or cutting-edge research, but established scientific knowledge that has been sufficiently discussed by other academics. It would be great, if you could briefly clarify your possible connection to this publication please.

Also, as already mentioned above in the previous message, please do not copypaste content from external sources into Wikipedia (this includes plagiarizing and closely paraphrasing said content). If you have additional questions, please feel free to ask me or post at WP:Teahouse for advice, but do not add similar content without clarifying this issue first to avoid any further copyright violations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue at the article's talkpage instead of edit-warring about it. I have already started a thread about the broader general issue, but please feel free to initiate a more specific discussion about this particular source and its usage if necessary. GermanJoe (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop!

Your edits at Building information modeling are becoming disruptive for several reasons, the most serious of which is copyright violation. If a source reads "... analyze things like heat gain, solar, ventilation, and energy efficiency in their designs" then you simply cannot add to Wikipedia (as you did here) "... analyze things like heat gain, solar, ventilation, and energy efficiency in their design". That is copyright violation, and if see any sign of you doing it again you can expect to be suspended from editing. Apart from that, edit-warring against other editors is both pointless and dispuptive, and that too can lead to loss of editing privileges. If you need help understanding any of this, please ask here on this page. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it on the talk page, please give some advice in that page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.65.90 (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage guidelines (see WP:TPG)

Hello Erinchia0617, I appreciate that you are trying to resolve the issue on the article talkpage, but some of your recent edits are confusing for other editors and against Wikipedia's talkpage guidelines:

Please do not remove or change your own messages, once another editor has replied to them (but feel free to add another message at the end of an existing thread of course).
Do not remove or change messages from other editors (with a few exceptions like blatant personal attacks or similar serious problems).
Copyright restrictions apply to talkpages and all other Wikipedia pages (like userspace and forums) as well. Please do not post content from other copyrighted sources (except short and clearly attributed quotations) anywhere on Wikipedia.

I hope this information is helpful for future constructive discussions to improve the article - Wikipedia can be confusing for new editors, so no problem with some initial mistakes. These three points are somewhat simplified for brevity though, you'll find the detailed information at WP:TPG and WP:COPYVIO respectively. I have reverted your latest edits to the article talkpage, but please feel free to post new suggestions following the above three basic principles. Thank you for your understanding. GermanJoe (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let you confused. But I just copy my own content from my own word file. Doesn't it work? Erinchia0617 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new formatting is better, thank you. I (and apparently another editor) disagree with the need for this detail, but let's wait for other uninvolved editors to offer additional feedback for now. A quick last tip: if you'd like to notify another editor about a particularly important new message, you can "ping" them - see WP:PING for more details. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. If there is no other univolved editors to offer additional feedback, could I add this information? Erinchia0617 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As apparently 2 or even 3 editors by now disagree with this content, you shouldn't add it. But I am obviously involved on the disagreeing site - please look for additional unbiased guidance at WP:Consensus and WP:Dispute resolution, or you can ask at WP:Teahouse for advice from other editors. There is no deadline for such changes anyway, so it would be good to give the talkpage discussion atleast a few days or 1-2 weeks to develop first (in my opinion). After that you can always choose one of the approaches in the linked guidelines, if you believe the content to be that important. GermanJoe (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But could you please tell why don't you disagree with this content? There is no any information about BIM is used in green building. But, actually, this issue is getting more important. And why do other people delete my content on the talk page directly? Erinchia0617 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current BIM article notes the usage of this process in "water, refuse, electricity, gas, communication utilities, roads, railways, bridges, ports and tunnels." without elaborate detail on any of these specific use cases. Why is BIM in green building so special that it needs a separate section? Secondly, most of your sources describe BIM in green building as new trend or proposed new approach, but not as a widely-used established method in this area. As already mentioned in previous messages: Wikipedia is no venue to popularize new trends that are (possibly) not fully established yet. Lastly, most of your sources are either directly involved pushing for these changes on affiliated websites, or research papers in minor journals. Such sources are not prohibited of course, but sources from uninvolved reputed mainstream publications would be a lot better. GermanJoe (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion: if you have further article-related arguments or suggestions, it is usually better to post such comments directly on the article's associated talkpage. This way other editors will see them as well without having to search in your userpage, and all or atleast most article-related discussions are centralized in 1 spot. GermanJoe (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:BIM in Green Building has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:BIM in Green Building. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, sorry I'm new at wiki. Erinchia0617 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question that affects the rationale for a separate article: why can't the main article on BIM include a short summary relating to its use in green building, rather than a lengthy content fork that restates the same concepts with a different title? BIM is neither essential in green building nor unique - it is a useful tool. If there is to be a content fork, it should have a rationale. Acroterion (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to deeply describe BIM in green building, then I would add a short summary relating to this title at the main article on BIM. And I think these are not the same concepts with a different title. That would be different concepts about how BIM can be applicated in different aspects. Erinchia0617 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Building information modeling in green building has been accepted

Building information modeling in green building, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]