User talk:PMJ Regan

Message for Hong Qi Gong: I work for the Brand Hong Kong Management Unit. We want to update and revise the Brand Hong Kong site, which contains much out-of-date content. Please do not delete my updates. If you want to talk, pls call (852) 2842 8846 or email brandhk@isd.gov.hk

Many thanks.

PMJ Regan.

Your edit contains mostly writing that promote Brand Hong Kong, so that violates Wikipedia's policy of writing articles from a neutral point of view. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Basically, the Brand Hong Kong article should not be written in such a way that promotes Hong Kong as a city or Brand Hong Kong itself. The other issue is that we cannot simply copy and paste content from our sources. That is a copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The best sources to use in the case of Brand Hong Kong are those that are not actually published by Brand Hong Kong or the Hong Kong government. If you can find some of those, I'd be happy to use them to update the article for you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We have noted your points above. The existing Brand Hong Kong page needs to be updated - it is inaccurate and misleading, and by removing our edits you are perpetuating this situation. Regarding neutrality, OK we will only submit material which is factual and neutral, though in actuality most of the material that you have already deleted was NOT promotional. Our main objective is to update the existing page with factually accurate material about Brand Hong Kong. In future, please note that any newly submitted material - and that includes today's edit, has been carefully considered and is simply factual and/or accurately describes Brand Hong Kong. If you have any further objections about our new content, we would appreciate if if you communicate your observations rather than completely removing our edit. We also need to change the Brand Hong Kong image because the current one is incomplete.

Regarding copyright - how can we violate our own copyright?! Our factsheets and website are 1. in the public domain and 2. our own material. Therefore we are quite within our rights to use such material if we wish to do so. PMJ Regan (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot violate your own copyright, but text that appear on Wikipedia's website would violate Brand Hong Kong's copyright if they are directly copied and pasted - that means Wikipedia would violate Brand Hong Kong's copyright. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not directly copying and pasting material - it has been newly composed for the Wikipedia entry. However, even IF we were directly copying and pasting, we don't agree that would mean Wikipedia's is violating our copyright as we have given Wikipedia the right to use it! If your logic is correct, then the current Wiki Brand Hong Kong page violates our copyright because we never gave Wikipedia permission to use the incomplete Brand Hong Kong image. Further, by repeatedly reinstating the old BHK page you are perpetuating the errors and out-of-date material in this version.

Finally, if you have any further doubts, please read the following. According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Copyright Treaty, which was incorporated into Hong Kong's Copyright Ordinance in 2008.

Article 8 Right of Communication to the Public "Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them." PMJ Regan (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that all text posted on Wikipedia must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0, which allows unlimited reuse of the material by any person for any purpose. If the copyright holder agrees to so-license the text, then the copyright problem disappears. If Brand Hong Kong is prepared to so-license its text, have it post that somewhere on its website, or send an e-mail from a clearly official e-mail address to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Brand Hong Kong article, but 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 include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I am confused, given your comments above, as to whether your account is being used by a single individual or by an organisation. On Wikipedia, accounts are for individuals only and it is forbidden for accounts to represent groups. Please also read: Policy on copyright and Policy on Conflict of Interest. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi CIreland. I presume you work for Wikipedia? I hope so as what I presumed to be a relatively straightforward process is becoming a nightmare - perhaps you can help to sort this out. As you may have picked up if you read through my thread, I work for BrandHK but I am acting as an individual in trying to update the BrandHK page, which contains out-of-date and inaccurate material.

Firstly, are you saying that it is necessary to re-write everything that can be found in Brand Hong Kong text? This doesn't make good sense as it is tantamount to reinventing the Brand.

For example, take the following sentence:

The BrandHK identity comprises three elements: a stylised dragon, the logotype “Hong Kong” and the brandline “Asia’s world city”. This is a statment of fact about the Brand. To rejig the sentence seems absurd - what should I do? put the brandline before the dragon?

In actual fact, as I was at pains to point out to Mr Hong, I have already re-written most of the material that I posted up yesterday, so I remain at a loss as to why this copyright issue has come up in the first place. Can you please identify which elements or sentences are regarded as breaching copyright?

Another point: Some of the material on Wikipedia's current BrandHK page is being used without BrandHK permission - the dragon logo, for example. How did this come about if Wikipedia is so picky about what goes on its pages? I want to upload the correct BrandHK dragon image, which is supposed to be inseperable from the tag "Asia's world city" and the logotype "Hong Kong".

Please clarify and suggest how I should proceed. I have lost a lot of time on this. Many thanks PMJ Regan (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, to begin with, nobody "works" for Wikipedia as it is a volunteer project, but I am an adminstrator for the project. The problem that we have with the addition of text from non-free sources even by the copyright holder is that it is difficult to determine whether the person adding the text is who they claim to be or is the original author of the text; a further issue is that all edits to Wikipedia must by freely licensed and few commercial or governmental organisations are willing to do this. See, for example, your own assertion of copyright.

Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that our content should be written with a neutral, dispassionate and scholarly tone. Text originally written for corporate promotion almost always needs to be rewritten to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Whilst editing Wikipedia is simple, adding text verbatim from corporate literature has intentionally been made difficult because this is almost always not appropriate material; it is because you have been trying to do this hat you have found the process a "nightmare". If you were simply to correct the errors using original text, perhaps also citing relevant literature, then there would be far fewer problems.

You also enquired about our use of the Brand Hong Kong Logo is logo in the article as this is clearly not a free-licensed image. This is being used under a fair use claim which is allowed (both legally in the US and under Wikipedia's own rules) for a limited number of images on Wikipedia where it would be impossible for a freely-licensed alternative to be created. CIreland (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You have mentioned that you have "lost a lot of time on this". If you work for Brand Hong Kong Management and were instructed by your managers to update the Brand Hong Kong article, please be advised about a possible conflict of interest, especially if you are using sources that are published by Brand Hong Kong Management itself. Please read Wikipedia:COI#Self-promotion. Brand Hong Kong itself is promotional in nature, so the best sources to use for this article are actually sources that are not related to Brand Hong Kong itself or the Hong Kong government, in order to maintain neutrality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your responses, and noted. With your advice in mind I have further rewritten the material and ensured that none is taken directly taken from source. However, I am sure you can appreciate that sometimes it is impossible to avoid reusing certain elements as they form an integral part of what is being described - the Brand's positioning statement, for example, or its core values or attributes are things that CANNOT be altered without redefining the Brand. I have endeavoured to use my own words as far as permissible without the page becoming a description of something else. The main objective, as I have been at pains to point out, is to provide a factually accurate account of Brand Hong Kong - what it is, why and when it came about, a brief history to date, with external links to related sites. I have also avoided any self-promotional language but again, please note the distinction between self promotion and language which merely describes the Brand. For example, if I have written "The Brand is designed to promote Hong Kong as Asia's world city..." I trust you will agree that is NOT self promotion but merely describes a fact about the Brand - indeed, that is why the Brand was created. If you have objections to any of the text I have inserted today I would be very grateful if you could indicate which sentences or phrases are objectionable, and why, rather than simply undoing my entire edit, as this leaves me none the wiser.

I also want to upload an accurate image of the Brand. Although the current image of the dragon is accurate, it should also include the tagline "Asia's world city" and the words "Hong Kong" - so currently it is an inaccurate representation. If you can give me any assistance with the image upload I'd be most grateful - my efforts thus far have been very frustrating as I have no idea where my uploaded file goes/has gone. I confess I am not particularly computer savvy, and so far I have found Wiki's image upload guidelines quite beyond me! PMJ Regan (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one would not find the content you insist on adding to be problematic. For example:

The research also led to the selection of five “core values” which people associated with Hong Kong, and which were used to underscore the Brand – progressive, free, stable, opportunity and high quality. Similarly, the city’s most commonly perceived “attributes” were deemed to be innovative, cosmopolitan, enterprising, leader and connected, and these were also incorporated into the BrandHK identity.

So according to Brand Hong Kong, which seeks to promote Hong Kong's image, the "core values" of the city are "progressive, free, stable, opportunity and high quality," and that its attributes are "innovative, cosmopolitan, enterprising, leader and connected." Whether or not these words describe Hong Kong is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. As it has been mentioned to you, there is a possible conflict of interest if you really do work for Brand Hong Kong Management. I've said this before - the best sources to use here are those that are not published by Brand Hong Kong itself or the Hong Kong government, but sources that are independent and neutral. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and input. The five core values and attributes are the result of the research survey which founded Brand Hong Kong, and as such form an integral part of BrandHK - as does the brandline Asia's world city. Not mentioning the core values or attributes would present an incomplete description of the brand. The brand is made up of constituent parts - the dragon, the brandline, the positioning statement, the core values and the attributes. An accurate description of the brand should contain all these elements. Similarly, you might not agree that HK is "Asia's world city", but this is what the survey/research produced and that is why it was adopted as the BrandHK brandline - surely you're not suggesting that I remove "Asia's world city" from the page? Even the dragon image is a product of the research survey and has just as much right, or as little right, to be on Wiki as the core values and attributes. However, noting your comments I have made adjustments today which I hope further clarify the link between the core values and attributes, the research survey and the Brand. I have also read the COI advice. As requested by that advice, I have made clear my connection with BHK and following your initial (and reasonable) comments I have rewritten the text in a neutral tone and deleted anything that might be described as self promotional. If there remains anything you still object to pls indicate and I will endeavour to change it. I am still having difficulty with the image upload. Can you give me any help with that? PMJ Regan (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Brand Hong Kong ID.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brand Hong Kong ID.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr Hong, you continue to misunderstand both the reason for my edits and their meaning. Above, you write:

So according to Brand Hong Kong, which seeks to promote Hong Kong's image, the "core values" of the city are "progressive, free, stable, opportunity and high quality," and that its attributes are "innovative, cosmopolitan, enterprising, leader and connected." Whether or not these words describe Hong Kong is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

These words are an indelible part of Brand Hong Kong. Of course it is a matter of opinion whether these words describe Hong Kong itself, but it remains a fact that they are part of the brand. You are confusing two issues. The reader is capable of deciding whether or not to agree with the description. Similarly, you might not agree that Coca Cola is the real thing - but I am sure that some reference is made to that advertising phrase in Wiki's section on Coca Cola, without even bothering to look. PMJ Regan (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)