User talk:Intrepidgm

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page U-Con, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Intrepidgm (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC) There was no copyright material on this page. I added the guests from 2019 (the guest list hasn't been updated since 2018), and now all the guests are gone. This is a non-profit convention operating for 34 years. How can a guest list that includes the works they have published be copywritten? Intrepidgm (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we can prove text is copied from another source, we assume it's fully copyrighted unless it's proven otherwise. It's a self-protective policy deriving from Wikipedias unique copyright situation (nearly all of Wikipedia is partially copyrighted). I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what IDoH says, Wikipedia's text is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and the Free Document Licence. Most other websites are under a Berne-standard all-rights-reserved copyright regime, even (and ESPECIALLY) if this is not explicitly stated. All-rights-reserved is mutually exclusive with both CC-By-SA and FDL, as the latter two allow for free reuse of the content under specific conditions while the former one does not. Thus, copying content from a website whose copyright licence is all-rights-reserved or not otherwise explicitly stated and reusing it here is a copyright violation. (Alternative licences of any sort are required to be explicitly declared at time of publication, hence why Wikipedia explicitly states its licence in the footer and explicitly states the licencing whenever you edit.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U-Con at AfD

Under unintended consequences, U-Con now nominated for deletion. Needs refs for existing content. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand this, now the whole site is going to be deleted?

Basically, at U-Con we need to create a page that is CC-By-SA that includes all the information that is to be stored in Wikipedia, so it can be stored in wikipedia.

In other words, we can't use Wikipedia to collect the tribal knowledge of a community that has existed for over 30 years. All text on Wikipedia has to be validated by some external source? Intrepidgm (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Wikipedia cannot be used as a web host. You are mostly correct that all text on Wikipedia has to be validated by some external source; that can refer to two different questions.

The first question is: should (subject X) have an article, at all, on Wikipedia (= is it "notable")? To decide that, the cutoff is "multiple reliable sources independent of the subject describing it at length" (see WP:GNG).

The second question is: given that (subject X) is notable (see first question), what should it say? The sources found to answer the first question are a great start for that, but you may use lesser-quality sources in addition. The cutoff is "reliable sources" - but for instance, subject X’s own website is a good source for X’s legal address (even though it is not independent of the subject), a random blog having a picture of "singer X at (some date) at (festival)" would probably be reliable for the very specific claim that singer X attended that festival even though blogs are generally not reliable, etc.

If you want this discussion to keep the article U-Con, you need to do is answer the first question. The second question is irrelevant for now. That means finding sources that are simultaneously (1) independent of the subject (your conference's website does not count), (2) reliable (not fan blogs), and (3) deal with the subject at length (not an announcement on a hotel’s online planning). In 99% of the cases, those sources would be newspaper articles. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]