Taraallab
Welcome
edit
|
The article Lisa Gervasoni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Written like an advertisement, does not meet WP:GNG
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LegoKontribsTalkM 05:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation
edit
Your addition to Wombat Hill Botanic Gardens has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Deor (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Taraallab (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC) there is no copyright violation in this case. I deliberately referenced the Victorian Heritage Register as the statement of significance is a legal document. Just like it is not a violation to quote a section of legislation when you quote the legislation and source it is not a copyright violation to use the statement of significance. Paraphrasing in this circumstance would be dangerous as it would not be the legal meaning. The article is close to meaningless without information about why it is of state significance - and that information is public source.
- If you click on the tiny "Terms and Conditions" link at the bottom of that Victorian Heritage page, you will see that "This page and all its components (including images, audio, video, text), unless otherwise stated, is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of Heritage Victoria, or the stated owner." Deor (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- And even if it displayed no copyright notice, we would have to treat it as copyright unless it was explicitly stated to be in the public domain or released under a license compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA - see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Short quotations can be used under "fair use" conditions, but nothing as long as this. You can make a mention of it, or a brief summary, in the article and link to it. JohnCD (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Message added 23:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Advice
editI promised you advice today, but I think the links I already gave you, WP:42, WP:Bombardment and WP:Wikipuffery, say most of it. What I see here is a good citizen and a very worthy person (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense) engaged in useful activities which are painstakingly documented down to the piece that won the embroidery prize at the local show; but nothing that adds up to notability enough for an article in a global encyclopedia. Numerous though the references are (#10 is a deadlink, by the way), they are nearly all list entries, or pictures she took, or references to a paper that she wrote, not substantial comment about her by somebody else.
The "notability" tag may bring others to help, and if the article gets nominated for deletion there will be a seven day discussion which may also attract others; but I'm afraid my candid opinion is that this is a case where WP:AMOUNT applies. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)