User talk:Kangesh
|
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Poietics, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{url}}}. As a copyright violation, Poietics appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Poietics has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Poietics and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Poietics with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Poietics.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Poietics and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Salih (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As the copyright holder of both the printed book on Poietics and the Mobipocket eBook, I give Wikipedia the required permission under the Terms of re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL.
I find this rather curious that you are somewhat concerned about a detail when the facts point to the author and the User as one and the same person. I have by the way created a page for "T.Wignesan" which is, I believe, awaiting posting on your site. How might I also create a page for the User? What further proof do you need? Kangesh (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to sign the following comment:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
You are correct to say that Mobipocket eBooks carries material on the same subject, but it's by the same author: T.Wignesan. There's therefore no infringement of copyright involved. Kangesh (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As instructed, I have just sent you at info@wikipedia.org an email explaining that Kangesh and T.Wignesan happen to be one and the same person, and that I give you: Wikipedia and its associates full rights to use the material in your sites. Please find copy of the email herebelow:
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
Many thanks for notifying me about the "deletion warning" on my article on Poietics.
I have already stated in the Talk Page that the author is one and the same person, that is, yours truly.
I tried logging in as myself, but Wikipedia/Wikimedia refused to accept my name, so I logged in as "Kangesh", the User.
As I said, there's no infringement of copyright since I'm (T.Wignesan and Kangesh) one and the same person, and am also the author of the printed book on Poietics and the Mobipocket eBook on Poietics.
I give you: Wikipedia and associates the right to include the material in the article on Poietics in your sites.
Every good wish and thanks.
Sincerely,
Dr. T. Wignesan Centre des Recherches: CERPICO & CREA, B.P. 90145, 94004 Creteil Cedex, France
Web URL: http://stateless.freehosting.net/menupage.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangesh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Kangesh (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. Wignesan. I went back to take a look and the article was correctly removed due to copyright issues. Does the original site say it is in the Public Domain or has a GFDL or CC-BY-SA license? Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations if you haven't. It explains what to do in your case. As per the article, be advised that even if it were reinstated after solving the copyright issue, it most probably would be tagged - as is - for notability issues. As for your comments on being "rather difficult" to approach admins. Not at all. The way to deal with speedy deletion issues is to place a "hangon" tag before the article gets deleted and explain your reasoning. Then there is of course asking the people involved in their Talk pages as you have done or of course there is always a last resort at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Also please read the pages on Conflicts of Interest. Lastly, it is generally not a good idea to display your email address in public places, unless you like spambots to collect it, so I masked it in your message. Take care. -- Alexf(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Alexf !
Thanks very much for coming back to me on the question of the deletion of my article on "Poietics". I have read the relevant passages on "copyright" and "notability" issues of your esteemed encyclopaedia, and I must admit I was not in possession of the body of rules and safeguards employed by the managers in this regard. There's just far too much to read and digest before one can get an idea of the restrictions imposed. In any case, it doesn't matter to me at all - I mean personally - if my article does not see the day in your columns. I just happened to surf your pages when I thought on the spur of the moment that it might have been a good idea to introduce the subject to your readers. I note however that you have included a request in Google for such an article, which means, if I'm not mistaken, there's a "call" for such material, similar to my own sudden urge when I rolled out the blurb from my books. Please let me say however that, with regard to the "notability" charge, I might perhaps be able to lay claim to the following: 1. That my two books on the subject are the first to appear in English; 2. That my bi-lingual (English-French) "Journal of Comparative Poietics" (which I founded and edited) is/was the only journal in English on the subject; the calibre of the contributors is irreproachable. 3. That my book: "Poietics: Disquisitions on the Art of Creation" elicited a flattering review. See please http://www.adamdonaldsonpowell.com/wignesan.html (I can assure you the critic's no relation of mine.) On the question of being a notable author: no, I'm of course NOT, but I do have a corpus as variable in genre as any in the metier, I should think. If you are still interested in seeing an article on the subject displayed on your site, I might give it a try, but, let's say, I'm not excessively brimming with enthusiasm after all these "rejection slips". Nice talking to you. Every good wish. Sincerely, Kangesh (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) T.WignesanKangesh (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Alexf ! I note that you have tagged yet another entry of mine, this time as containing "white spaces". I made an attempt on October 12th to correct the "T.Wignesan" text submitted on October 6th (if I'm not mistaken). Unfortunately, for me or for you (I can't quite say), the white spaces just wouldn't budge/give in all cases. I find a comparative edit page on the entry but I have no idea what it means or what it is that I'm called upon - if anything - to do. Perhaps as the administrator who tagged the piece, you could advise and enlighten me on the matter. Many thanks and every good wish. Sincerely, T.WignesanKangesh (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I've left you a somewhat belated "welcome notice" at the top of your userpage. It has some information that may be useful to you. But I wanted to also let you know that Alexf may not to see your message here. If you wish to speak to him, you can find his talk page at User talk:Alexf. If you need general assistance, you're welcome to visit the help desk referenced in the welcome message above or even to ask it here. Simply type your question and place {{helpme}} (brackets and all) and a volunteer will come by to address your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Poietics
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Poietics 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is your words
[edit]If the article really is your copyrighted content, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. We are not trying to upset you, but, rather, are trying to protect your content against copyright infringement. The article I linked to will tell you how to donate content. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed your post. Glad to see we are delivering consistent advice.--SPhilbrickT 15:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Poietics
[edit]The words on the Poietics page may have been your own, but we don't know that.
Please see Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to resolve that issue.
In addition, the format of the page was not close to acceptable. Please consider starting in user space. One easy way to start an article in user space is to use the Article Wizard, which will give you an option to start in user space. Or you can directly create a page in your user space (ask if you need to know how.) I hope you will try again, but this time start in user space, or create offline until you have an article meeting minimum guidelines.--SPhilbrickT 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
One other concern. I didn't read the draft in detail, but it looked like it might be original research. While original research is wonderful, it does not have a place in Wikipedia. Before you go to too much trouble creating an article, you might consider whether the discussion of Poietics constitutes original research.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will say that more firmly: even if you were to give the appropriate copyright release, the article would undoubtedly be deleted as original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
More on copyright
[edit]I can understand if you are frustrated about the deletion of material due to copyright concerns when you are the holder of the copyright. I hope you can appreciate that Wikipedia takes the rights of copyright holders very seriously, so we are erring on the side of caution. If I may, I'd like to share two examples to show why we are careful, even when we are convinced that you are the author of the words in question.
In one example, an editor copied some material also found on the website of an organization. He protested that he wrote the material for the website, so he was taking someone else's words. What he missed was that he wrote the words as an employee of the organization, so the copyright was in the name of the organization, not the individual. Despite being the sole author of the words, he was not in a position to release copyright.
In a more personal example, I've written articles for professional journals. Despite being unquestionably the author, I can't even quote myself without permission, as the journal owns the copyright. I realize neither of these examples, exactly fits your situation, I relay them simply to point out that dealing with copyright can be tricky, and we want to do it the right way to protect everyone's rights. Sorry for any inconvenience.--SPhilbrickT 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Hello Moonriddengirl, Reaper Eternel, SPhilbrick & Haworth ! Thank you very much for your thoughts and suggestions on how to avoid having my article on "poietics" deleted, but Haworth is convinced that whatever I do, the article will be deleted on the charge that it is "original research". All this's quite confusing to novice like me on Wikipedia. Besides, I don't see the text of my response to Moonriddengirl's statement made this afternoon. Is that also subject to deletion? Now, whilst I greatly appreciate your explanations on how to go about creating a page for a subject on Wikipedia, I can't quite understand why my article may (and should be deleted, according to Haworth) be deleted even if I gave the necessary copyright permission. I did follow the instructions in 2009 and sent an email to the relevant authority confirming the granting of copyright, etc. Now, I'll do the same again, but should I? since Haworth has already proscribed it. As someone who has read for the Bar in London and who has been writing and publishing for over half a century, I guess I'm also somewhat concerned about copyright laws, even if Wikipedia procedure for securing and assuring copyright seems to me a little more complicated than I thought at first. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to agree among yourselves what in fact I should do now to be able to post this piece on your site. 1. Do I have to re-write the piece? Why and how? 2. Do I still need to send an email to the address given according copyright permission? 3. Will the piece be still subject to elimination since it is deemed "original research"? Quite frankly, I couldn't care one way or the other, but Wikipedia had expressed a desire to see the subject added to its pages. And in the circumstances, I too would like to see how my page would fare on your site. Every good wish and many thanks for listening. Please re-instate my last response (made this afternoon) so that the trend of the argument need not be needlessly abridged. Sincerely, T. Wignesan or Kangesh Kangesh (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Poietics
[edit]- Deleted revision of Talk:Poietics (as of 2009-10-10, at 17:54:15) by SineBot
You are correct to say that Mobipocket eBooks carries material on the same subject, but it's by the same author: T.Wignesan. There's therefore no infringement of copyright involved. Kangesh (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As instructed, I have just sent you at info@wikipedia.org an email explaining that Kangesh and T.Wignesan happen to be one and the same person, and that I give you: Wikipedia and its associates full rights to use the material in your sites. Please find copy of the email herebelow:
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
Many thanks for notifying me about the "deletion warning" on my article on Poietics.
I have already stated in the Talk Page that the author is one and the same person, that is, yours truly.
I tried logging in as myself, but Wikipedia/Wikimedia refused to accept my name, so I logged in as "Kangesh", the User.
As I said, there's no infringement of copyright since I'm (T.Wignesan and Kangesh) one and the same person, and am also the author of the printed book on Poietics and the Mobipocket eBook on Poietics.
I give you: Wikipedia and associates the right to include the material in the article on Poietics in your sites.
Every good wish and thanks.
Sincerely,
Dr. T. Wignesan Centre des Recherches: CERPICO & CREA, B.P. 90145, 94004 Creteil Cedex, France
Web URL: http://stateless.freehosting.net/menupage.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangesh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- "I tried logging in as myself". Do you mean that or do you mean "tried to create a new account"? May I point out this account creation? Was that you?
- Wikipedia is highly democratic. Just because two admins have both said that it may be original research does not prevent you reposting it. But we are both trying to save you from the embarrassment / ignominy of having the article discussed at AfD (if no-one else did, I would definitely send it there) and deleted. "Wikipedia had expressed a desire". Nonsense - Wikipedia has no voice in matters such as this - be specific: where was this desire expressed and by whom? I do not see it on any list of wanted articles. Incidentally, do not begin lines with one or more spaces. This causes page widening - your text of poietics was unreadable because of the amount of horizontal scrolling needed - surely you noticed?
- As for User:Kangesh/Wignesan: firstly it is currently not even an article, just a CV. But please do not bother to turn it into an article - autobios are strongly deprecated. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)