User talk:IrishHistory

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. StaticGull Talk 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Harkins

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to James J. Harkins. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. justinfr (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the notability tag on James J. Harkins until that issue has been resolved. It could be construed as vandalism. justinfr (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Template:Hist-book-stub, you will be blocked from editing. Road Wizard (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was probably an accident. But, IrishHistory, please be careful about what you're editing and remember to use the preview butting before hitting save! :) justinfr (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By no means did I intentionally attempt to vandalize anything. I'm simply a new user who is beginning to become frustrated. I failed to recognize how to create a new post. I think I've learned a lot today. Please be patient, slow learner!--IrishHistory (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I can give you the benefit of the doubt, but please be very careful when editing any page that starts with "Template:". Templates are used to insert small portions of text into other articles. Your inclusion of a whole article onto that one template repeated the entire text on 510 other Wikipedia articles. Road Wizard (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The Irish Matryoshka: A History of Irish Monks in Medieval Europe. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. justinfr (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unlear on the copyright issues. I created the website that is used as a reference. Non of my writtings are copyright infringement. How do I get approval to use my own text from my own website?--IrishHistory (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. First, the wholesale copying of text from a source into Wikipedia is considered a copyright violation unless there is evidence that the original text is free from copyright. To release your own work from copyright for re-use on Wikipedia see WP:IOWN, however you should also read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as once the text appears on Wikipedia anyone in the world can re-use it whenever and however they want without paying royalties to you.

The second and more important point is that all articles have to conform to our rules on verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. If you are creating articles about yourself or a close relative then there may be a conflict of interest that makes it harder to follow those three key policies. To sustain an article in Wikipedia we need reliable sources above and beyond works produced by the original author. While a quote of a small snippet of text may be useful to the article, any article written solely from the perspective of a self-published source is likely to be deleted immediately. Note, if only a small amount of original text is quoted then no copyright permission is required (as long as the original source is cited) Road Wizard (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of James J. Harkins

A tag has been placed on James J. Harkins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

I have been assuming good faith all day, but I am beginning to think that you are doing these things deliberately as spam. Please add articles that are encyclopedic, not self-promotional. justinfr (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it's not my intention to spam, this is my first attempt at Wikipedia and I'm still learning about what I am authorized to do. I'm the son of the author and I am attempting to increase the visibility of my fathers astonishing work. I was using "How the Irish Saved Civilization" book-stub as an example. I'm a little unclear of what the differences are. I will attempt to work on making it more encyclopedic in nature.--IrishHistory (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the goals of Wikipedia make self-publicity attempts a little difficult. The existing policies on verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view make it impossible to use Wikipedia as an advertisement tool. Creation of articles about yourself or a close relative is often difficult as it is much harder for someone close to the subject to be objective and follow the three key policies I mentioned above. Also, new articles about books need to conform to our guidelines on notability. If the book falls into the criteria listed there then it will be much easier to retain an article about it.

If you think that the book falls within the criteria please post here again and we will see how we can go about creating an article that conforms to policy. Road Wizard (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]