User talk:Alistairliv

Your edit to Galwegian Gaelic

Your recent edit to Galwegian Gaelic (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gary Critchley

A tag has been placed on Gary Critchley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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.

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. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Critchley

Just to let you know that I have commented at Talk:Gary Critchley. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gary Critchley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The following two comments were moved from Talk:Gary Critchley. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Gary Critchley page with the help of the Justice for Gary Critchley campaign - http://www.justiceforgarycritchley.org/ So should not be a copyright problem. Alistairliv (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alastairliv. Two things: firstly, for material that is copyrighted (which published works automatically are), we need to get explicit permission to use that material on Wikipedia - see this page for details. However, I think the article has other problems too: it's completely unsourced, and clearly advocates a certain cause, which may conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. To stay in Wikipedia I would suggest it needs a substantial rewrite, so trying to establish copyright permission is probably not worthwhile. If I were you I would consider starting a new article draft in you user space, where you can add the independent, reliable sources the article would need to survive in the encyclopedia. Feel free to contact me on my user talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have deleted the article as unambiguous copyright infringement. Please note in addition to the above that the organization may not want their content relicensed even if it might provide greater visibility. Our license is exceptionally permissive, and allows re-use without prior permission for pretty much any purpose, including commercial. A better way to help the case as well as the encyclopedia would be to write a neutral article relating how reliable sources have described Critchley and his case. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]