User talk:Grumpy fire

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fire on the Limestone Plains (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RadioFan was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fire on the Limestone Plains and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Grumpy fire, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fire on the Limestone Plains has been accepted

Fire on the Limestone Plains, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

RadioFan (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've set the block duration as indefinite as your first and only article was copied and pasted from other websites. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Doug Weller has passed on your message. As noted above, you were blocked for an indefinite period as all your edits were adding material which violates copyright. I note that you were in fact warned about this previously, with earlier drafts of the article being deleted and you being informed about what the owner of the http://www.firebreak.com.au website would need to do to make the material on it consistent with Wikipedia's copyright conditions ([1], [2] refer). If you'd like to appeal the block, please follow the above instructions: you are not blocked from editing this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I was warned once re copyright violation by Tokyogirl79, and I have not persisted as you claim. As I have stated to both both Tokyogirl79 and Radiofan I am the owner of FIREBREAK website (not sure how I ask myself for permission) however as I said to Tokyogirl97 I would modify the FIREBREAK copyright notice to cover CC, however the FIREBREAK copyright statement is quiet explicit "Some of the information is copyright; All images are copyright, please ask before using." The ACT BFC report's that I have used on WIKIPEDIA I have permission to use (yes it is verbal), in addition, whilst I have permission to use, under Australian Copyright rules (as I understand and yes I am not a copyright lawyer) fall under "fair dealing" anyway.

The biggest issue for me as a first time user of WIKIPEDIA is that I have been "victimised" by you, I have acted in "good faith" and have to the best of my knowledge complied with Australian copyright laws yet you have decide and I use your words " I've set the block duration as indefinite as your first and only article was copied and pasted from other websites. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)" this is totally unreasonable to me, I am not a consistent breacher and yet you have decided to make an example of me for whatever reason, or at least that is my perception.

Regarding your comment to Radiofan "Hi, The Fire on the Limestone Plains AfC submission you approved and moved into article space was cobbled together from material taken from other websites without permission. It was also full of images uploaded under clearly false CC claims - none had links to a source, and Googling the ACT Emergency Services Agency would have led you to this copyright statement. The maps were actually taken from http://www.firebreak.com.au/, along with much of the article's text. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)"

I refute your assertion that "It was also full of images uploaded under clearly false CC claims " the maps that I used both on the FIREBREAK and WIKIPEDIA article I have permission to use, these images were generated on a briefing by me to Rick McRae of ESA for an Exhibtion (http://www.tuggeranongarts.com/the-fire-did-not-beat-us-2/) and (yes again verbal) to be able to use under condition equal to CC.

I also find it offensive your comment "was cobbled together" I never made a claim that I am some wizz bang word smith/editor, I only felt it was important to put together an article on WIKIPEDIA that a record of a 100 year of history of the ACT Rural Fire Service and perhaps naively assumed WIKIPEDIA was the most appropriate medium and had hoped that the WIKIPEDIA editor experts would make it work.

Finally I understand that WIKIPEDIA is done by volunteers, as a volunteer with the ACT Rural Fire Service since 1988 I have the greatest respect for volunteers however that does not give volunteers irrespective of their organiseation some excuse to show disrespect or act unprofessionally.

Regarding the block being removed to be blunt your attitude Nick-D has left a "very bad taste in my mouth" (this is an Australian term but I assume you get the general gist) its up to you, if a 100 years of history for the ACT Rural fire Service is not worth a WIKIPEDIA article then leave the "block duration as indefinite"

regards Grumpy fire (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that due to the way in which material posted on Wikipedia can be edited freely by anyone forever, be republished and modified elsewhere without specific permission forever, etc, there's a need for copyright releases to be very specific and documented - I'm sure that you wouldn't want someone copying and pasting something you'd written and posting it into Wikipedia without your agreement first, and documentation is needed to establish that everything's OK. The ball is entirely in your court here: you were previously advised that the material wasn't consistent with Wikipedia's copyright rules and were provided with advice on how to ensure the content is compliant, and if you want to post the material onto Wikipedia you need to follow up on it. This will need to include documentation from people who provided you with material to republish in which they specifically agree to it being published under the Creative Commons licence used by Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)