User talk:PiselliGroszek

Hello, I'm MasterMatt12. I noticed that you recently removed content from Polish American Historical Association without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the immediate past president of the Polish American Historical Association, and all changes I have made are authorized by the board of ditrevctors of the organization, out of a conscious decision to update the entry and eliminate long lists of officers and award winners. I have spent several hours at this task, and I would appreciate your resoring all changes I have entered. PiselliGroszek (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PiselliGroszek! Your additions to Polish American Historical Association have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

• 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa,

I am the immediate past president of the Polish American Historical Association, and have carried out all recent edits and revisions to the entry on that organization at the request, and with the approval, of the board of directors of the organization. I respectfully request restoration of the page as it appeared before your unilateral recent deletions. If not that, I request an explanation for each specific deletion. Some of the deletions you made have been present on this entry long before we began this recent series of revisions in December. PiselliGroszek (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa,

Followiung up on my reply, the quotations you have removed from descriptions of award entries--I can only assume that is what you refer to--are taken from the descriptions of the website of PAHA. Further, most of those quotations had existed on the site before I began the revisions I was asked to undertake. That task has taken me many hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to have an explanation for your decision, and a more detailed explanation how to display the information the organization has asked me to inckude in the entry without having that work unilaterally removed without prior notice. PiselliGroszek (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. It doesn't matter that the content has been present on the page for a while; it simply took a long while for the problem to be detected.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest below. — Diannaa (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PiselliGroszek. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Polish American Historical Association, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa,

I understand your position, but strongly disagree with your decision to make deletions in the entry on the Polish American Historical Association without consultation or appeal. First, because I would argue that the changes I entered were not promotional, but informative, about the organization and its activities. Second, some of the edits I made were to correct or update information, already posted in the entry, that can only be known by members of the organization itself. Third, many of the deletions you have made were not entered recently, by me, in the recent round of revisions, but had been part of the entry on the organization for a long time, so some of your deletions, if you will pardon my saying, are simply arbitrary and unwarranted. I respectfully urge you to reconsider. PiselliGroszek (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia can't host copyright content copied from somewhere else; it's a violation of our copyright policy to do so. All content needs to be sourced to independent reliable external sources such as newspapers, books, or reliable websites; stuff that only insiders know is not what we're looking for; that's called original research and we don't want it here. Material copied from an organization's own website is not welcome here either. It doesn't matter that the content has been present on the page for a while; it simply took a long while for the problem to be detected. Unlike LinkedIn or Facebook, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and the content we host is not controlled by the subject of any given article. Please feel free to get a second opinion from one of the people on this list if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa,

My position remains unchanged: I understand what you are saying, but strongly disagree. I will not repeat my arguments in earlier messages. But in regards to your mention of copyright concerns--a matter with which I have some familiarity, having had professional experience as an editor--1) without getting into specifics, some of your decisions to retain or delete are puzzling and inconsistent by your own criteria you cite, and 2) you have struck passages, some of them of long standing, as I have stated, that can have absolutely no relation to copyright concerns. May I respectfully suggest that you have been overzealous in your interventions, resulting in an entry that is less informative to readers. PiselliGroszek (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]