User talk:Bigradish

Welcome!

Hello, Bigradish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

I'd just like to say that Diamond segment is an excellently formatted new article, especially for someone as new as you are- I couldn't have done better myself. At all. Keep up the good work! :) SS✞^(Kay) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Diamond segment

A tag has been placed on Diamond segment 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. Wizard191 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Diamond segment

A tag has been placed on Diamond segment 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. Wizard191 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the diamond segment page

Hi Wizard191,

I've modified the copyright terms on our website, which allow our articles to be availabe for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I wonder why the diamond segment page had still been deleted. Thank you very much. Bigradish (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to "your" webpages it states:

"We reserve the copyright of this article. This article cannot be copied or quoted unless the web address (URI) of this article or our website is included in the article or webpage which copies or quotes this article. But anyway, linking to this article or our website is permitted and is appreciated. On the other hand, this article is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

In the very first sentence it states the text is copyrighted. There are also two other copyright symbols on the page, therefore it is copy-written. Wizard191 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wizard191,

We can retain our copyright for our articles when we contribute material to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. It says:

"When you contribute material to Wikipedia, you are not giving us exclusive use of it. You still retain any rights you previously held, but you are giving non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Our copyright terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and GNU Free Documentation License.

Thank you.

Bigradish (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I learn something new everyday. I'm still not completely sure about how reliable your website it though. As that page you link notes, we don't allow original research (OR), so how do we know this isn't OR? Wizard191 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wizard191,

Thank you for your understanding.

The knowledge in the articles on our website mainly comes from professional books, our professional knowledge and experience, and some reliable sources on the web. We try to make our articles reliable, because they may be read by our customers and other readers who are interested in our fields. If our customers find our articles unreliable, they may not trust us and may not do business with us.

Actually, the articles on our website are mainly about basic and common knowledge, and are not very professional. They are of quite common knowledge for professionals in our fields, and their error-possibility is not big. But these knowledge is fairly scarce on Wikipedia. These knowledge is not original research. The technologies exist for many decades and evolve continually.

Certainly, we do not exclude the possibility that our articles may have errors in them. We have made a commenting function for each article which the readers can use to point them out.

Thank you very much.

Bigradish (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you convinced me. Wizard191 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]