User talk:Pencubitt

Speedy deletion of Pencubitt House

A tag has been placed on Pencubitt House 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 blatant 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 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." 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pencubitt House

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pencubitt House, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pencubitt.com/history.htm. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with copyright permission, conflict of interest, etc

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that in the article Pencubitt House you have placed a notice saying "I, Clive Emmerson, am the author of this article, (History of Pencubitt), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licens". Unfortunately there is a problem with this, namely that anyone can post on Wikipedia with no proof of who they are, and (unfortunately) we do sometimes have people making false claims as to their identity, so we cannot simply take an anonymous editor's word for it that they own copyright. I am not an expert on copyright issues, but I think that if you were to place the same notice on the web site from which the material is taken then that would cover it. Alternatively, if you do not wish to have the information displayed there, you could contact the Wikimedia foundation to give permission. Details of how to do this can be found on the page about requesting copyright permission. I think, however, that it is only fair to warn you that there are other issues which may not be so easily disposed of. Firstly, there is the issue of conflict of interest. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing of an article by anyone who has a direct involvement in the subject of the article, and you, as one of its owners, clearly have such an involvement. Secondly, there is the question of promotion. For an owner of a business to place a copy of material from the business's web site looks very much like an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is against Wikipedia policy. Thirdly, there is the issue of notability. Wikipedia does not accept articles on just anything, but only on subjects which have been established by having received substantial coverage by reliable independent sources. Nothing that I have seen, either in the article or elsewhere, gives any evidence of this. There are plenty of sources which mention Pencubitt House, but as far as I can see most of them are commercial sources providing accommodation information on behalf of businesses, which are not likely to be seen as independent sources. Consequently it seems to me very likely that, even if such issues as copyright can be cleared up, the article will not be seen to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and will be deleted. you may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether to pursue the copyright matter further.

Your notice about copyright does not belong in the article, so I have moved it to the article's talk page.

Finally, if you have any questions about any of the issues I have mentioned please feel very welcome to ask me. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that a previous version of this article was deleted as a copyright violation of this same source on 1 November 2008. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you own th3e copyright and wish to license it for use here, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials but the other issues particularly that of notability, would remain. DES ^(talk) 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User name issues

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the policy to not edit in a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

DES ^(talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Sansom

The article John Sansom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pencubitt House - possible deletion

I have held back from proposing deletion of Pencubitt House to give you time to respond to the issues mentioned above. However, if there is no change from the present situation the article will be proposed for deletion soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have today deleted this article as a G12 (copyright violation) until I was directed to the website used as the (sole) source, so I've restored it. However, notability and WP:COI still need to be addressed, although I don't see that a change of user name is required. Rodhull andemu 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pencubitt House

The article Pencubitt House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable house/hotel. Fails WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the building listed? If so, then this would go towards establishing notability as it would fall under the remit of WP:HSITES. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pencubitt House

Thank you for your note on my talk page, however your comments may be better directed to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has been enetered at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion however it was done by an ISP rather than an a/c and no reasoning was given. This has resulted in the AfD. I would suggest that you put your arguements there for a Keep vote. Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Pencubitt House

I have nominated Pencubitt House, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pencubitt House. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status

Hello,

As has been hinted, the source page for this is licensed under the GFDL license only, which is no longer permissible on Wikipedia. The content must, at least, be licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons- Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Licence. If you are able to remedy this, please indicate so at your earliest convenience, failing that, we will have to delete the article for copyright violations.

Thanks & regards, MLauba (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, your account has been blocked; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]