User talk:Petergoldberg

Copyright problems with PLNet

Hello. Concerning your contribution, PLNet, 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 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/plnet/. As a copyright violation, PLNet appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. PLNet 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:PLNet and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:PLNet 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-en(at)wikimedia(dot)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:PLNet.

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.

Please note the copyright terms at http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copyright.html ∙ AJChamtalk 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PLNet

Hi. With regard to pages in the future, you can avoid the article being deleted for copyright reasons by leaving a message on the talk page indicating that permission is on the way or simply adding {{otrs pending}}. Assuming that the article doesn't meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion, the article will be tagged and blanked until the permission is received, at which time it'll be restored to normal.

Ordinarily I'd restore the article and ask a volunteer to look for the permission email, but unfortunately in this instance the article itself was written in a promotional manner and therefore qualifies for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Promotional language is, of course, expected on organisation websites, but in an article we must keep to our neutral point of view policy. You should also be aware of our conflict of interest guideline which strongly discourages editing (and creating) articles on subjects to which you are connected. If you have to edit such articles, it should be restricted to simple fact-correction. Regards, – Toon 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether your organisation is commercial or not, the article was very promotional. Rhetoric such as "provides reliable, robust and safe network infrastructure", "Rural or urban, remote or metropolitan, PLNet connects BC’s Educators" and "PLNet brings opportunities and programs to communities..." are a few examples of language inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Please note that Wikipedia isn't a place for governmental organisations to communicate with the public, but an encyclopaedia aiming to provide neutral coverage of subjects that meet our notability guidelines. Our relevant inclusion guideline for organisations states that non-commercial organisations "are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"

If your organisation only operates in only one province, it will not meet this guideline. If you can provide reliable, third party sources that cover the organisation in-depth, it may meet the general notability guideline.

If you feel that you can satisfy these guidelines, the new article should be submitted to the articles for creation process, where it will be evaluated for neutrality and verifiability by another editor before being moved into article space. Regards, – Toon 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of PLNet

I have nominated PLNet, 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/PLNet. 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. – Toon 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]