User talk:Stpetric

License tagging for Image:Ecce 002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ecce 002.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ecce 002.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Ecce 002.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 08:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Thomas Verner Moore

A tag has been placed on Thomas Verner Moore requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

Thanks for checking with me without simply going ahead and recreating the article :-) Several of your points do not help fulfill notability criteria. The exceptions are 3 and 4 — depending on how important his writings and works are; you'd have to establish those sufficiently — and 6 — you'd have to establish that the biography is a "credible independent biography." However, I am not going to undelete the article, because you committed a copyright violation: except the first sentence, you copied all of it from this page. If you want to recreate it, go ahead, but (1) be aware that you'll quickly have to establish that he fulfills the notability criteria, and (2) do not copy text from other websites. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've definitely demonstrated that Moore is notable. By all means, then, go ahead and recreate it: but please include those outside references when you post the article, or someone else may try to have it deleted. And about the copyright: we have no way to prove (other than the emails) that it's permitted. There are two ways you can do it:

Reword the text. As long as you're citing it as your source, putting its ideas in your own words is altogether fine.
Since you know the publisher of the website, you could have him/her post something to the effect that the text is not copyrighted, but rather placed under any of various free licenses (at that page, click on any article, which should have the license's text), or placed in the public domain. Simply posting on the website that "this text can be copied to Wikipedia" isn't enough.

Any more questions? I'll do my best to answer them. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]