Livethankful
Welcome
edit
|
Managing a conflict of interest
edit
Hello, Livethankful. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
edit
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sacred Name Bibles, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:One Unity Study Bible
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:One Unity Study Bible, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
- It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of https://ousb.org/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Reply
editHello Grayfell, I hope this is how to start a new topic with you. I am new on Wikki, I just published and finishing the OUSB e-book. I did not make any intentional negative promotional in the sacred name bible translations list. it appears you deleted my addition. I want to know what was wrong about that. I am new and don't understand your position about deleting and appearing to be threatening me with words that I don't understand. Please help me understand. Livethankful (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Livethankful
- Hello. For simplicity I have copied your comments from my talk page to here. You correctly created a new post on my talk page, but it will be easier for you to find my response here. This will also make it easier for any other interested editors to find this discussion.
- There are several issues that need to be addressed:
- First, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I don't know what you mean by negative promotional, because there is no positive promotion allowed here, either. Wikipedia isn't the place for promotion, it is a place to share some information, but only from a neutral point of view. The way we decide what information should be shared and what should not is through reliable sources, and especially independent sources. The website you have created for this Bible project is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is not independent of that project.
- Further, the language you used to add your project to pages was not neutral. This edit as one example was written in a promotional tone. You should not use Wikipedia's voice to tell people to "allow the Bible to define itself". Just as Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, it is also not a platform for advocacy.
- You'll notice that I don't call this a translation, I call this a project. This is because it isn't clear to me whether or not this is a translation from the original languages, or a rephrasing from existing translations. What is necessary for this to be mentioned at all is at least some sign of independent secondary coverage of this project. From this source we can summarize what this is, and explain why it is encyclopedically significant.
- Finally, your draft article was a mixed collection of copy/pasted content from the project's website. This is a violation of Wikipedia's strict policies on copyrighted material. Because of legal and ethical considerations, this is not something Wikipedia can take lightly.
- I hope that answers your questions. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I hope this is how to reply.
There is no copyright infringement because two reasons, I am the author. And I made it in the public domain. Therefore I have some confirmations to make to confirm this claim but it is true nevertheless. And public domain is public domain, without copyright. You can see there are no references as is, missing. if I made this scholarly work, and there are 132 references in that, do you think I would not adhere to making citation? It was my original work, to begin with.
So, where are the tutorials to take care of things? I went thru most of the basics but skipped 101 class. Where is the 101 for serious authors and researchers? I am not joking. I am just very very busy and want direction to focus my time.
It is even stated to be a derivative project, not a new translation.
Yes, it is hard to be original when I wrote the original work for description and made it as non-biased as possible to describe. I have difficulty rewriting original work of my own original work written non-biasly to start with. There is some way to cite this in the work done for the OUSB page.
How do you make citation of "quotes" such as slogans ""allow the Bible to define itself" and "discover for yourself" are both slogans and citating the exact work and the stated intention of the author of the book. See the difficulty, i know you do. Wikki even mentions this. So I would like others ot help in making this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livethankful (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. Regarding copyright issues, Wikipedia cannot just take your word for it that you have released this to the public domain. The One Unity Study Bible may be in the public domain, but the page you wrote about the OUSB does not indicate that it is also in the public domain. You could donate this material to Wikipedia, if you really wanted to, but please don't until the other issues have been addressed. I am saying this to save your time, and to save the time of Wikipedia's other volunteers.
- Wikipedia:101 will take you to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. This is a good starting point, but it's not a simple tutorial. Wikipedia:Your first article will walk you through the steps of creating an article, but please don't skip Wikipedia:Your first article#Things to avoid. You have a conflict of interest here, and that's a serious issue. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains this. You may also find Wikipedia:Teahouse helpful, as people there will be happy to try and answer any questions you may have.
- I do not know how to say this without being rude, so please excuse me. Your English is confusing. It's difficult to understand exactly what you are saying here, so it is difficult for me to respond to your concerns. What do you mean by "there are no references as is"? If this is your original work, you need to understand that Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Wikipedia isn't the place to repeat your intentions. Everybody has intentions, but that's not enough. We are the place to summarize what reliable sources have to say.
- I do not accept that your description is as non-biased as possible. On Wikipedia the way we resolve disagreements like this is with reliable sources. If you know of any reliable sources which discuss this Bible, please link them here.
- I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)