User talk:Ozneil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Belated welcome

Hi looks like you never got: -

Welcome!

Hello, Ozneil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!


Also - if you wonder why adding information attracts attention and editing - have a look at Mundaring weir and other articles similar - we dont add contact details - and stokers cafe weblink is a dubious item as well!

SatuSuro 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerville Ecovillage

Hey, wanted to let you know I've nominated Somerville Ecovillage for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerville Ecovillage. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't use any material that's copyrighted, so I removed the content copied from here, which didn't leave much. Please feel free to comment in the deletion discussion or to change the article. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Sorry to undo your hard work! Peace, delldot talk 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of Somerville Ecovillage

{{helpme}} It was a bit of a shock to find SomerVille Ecovillage deleted.

I spent quite a long time researching and adding references after the notability had been questioned.

There is no copyright violation as I am the author of the official SomerVille Ecovillage web site. Moondyne does not have his or her facts straight. Yes, there are several vacant paddocks within the 399 acres but there are families living on the land now with more on the way. I would be happy to arrange a tour for Moondyne as visitors are welcome by appointment.

It is not clear to me on what basis the article was eventually deleted. Is anyone able to clarify this for me?

I don't expect everyone to like the article and as a relatively new author on Wikipedia, would appreciate tips on how I can improve it rather than just having the article deleted for no valid reason.

Ozneil (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ozneil! Welcome! Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerville Ecovillage to see the reasons it was deleted. I realize Wikipedia might seem confusing at first, (please click on the blue words to read the policy/guide they refer to). Wikipedia is not like other sites you may have come across. First, it is an encyclopedia. What this means, is that it is not MySpace, or FaceBook, or a place to host personal webspace, or a place where editors can make articles about anything they wish. Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, etc. What does all of this mean? Well, it means that any article on Wikipedia must demonstrate notability (meaning it must be note worthy, covered by the media, etc.), and have reliable, third-party sources (such as news media articles, magazine/trade journal articles) written about the subject, and the information given in the article must cite those sources to verify it is true. From those sources, information is summarized, paraphrased, condensed, and worded neutrally to make an encyclopedic entry (information cannot be copied from other sites). See Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for assistance. I hope that helps explain the issues! Ariel♥Gold 08:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note re:Somerville

Hi Neil, thanks for the note. I think if you wanted to work on the article again, it would have a chance of being kept. If the material I removed came from your website, you can donate the material so that wikipedia can use it by following the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already on line. You may find it easier to just rewrite the material so that it's not similar enough to be considered a copyright violation. I would recommend the latter for two reasons: First, there were some neutrality problems with the material, i.e. I thought it read like an advertisement for the villiage. So you'll need to pare out anything that's not hard, cold facts anyway in order to comply with our very fundamental neutrality policy. Second, the material does not cite reliable, third party references and therefore violates wikipedia's attribution policy and can be removed at any time by anyone. So personally I'd start from the ground up and only add info that you can attribute to reliable sources, and cite them. Really notability boils down to one thing: the sources. If the subject has been written about or covered in a significant way in multiple, reliable, third party sources, in my book it's notable. So that would be your best bet if you want to have a go at recreating the article and having it kept: cite tons of sources. If there aren't multiple sources that mention the place in a nontrivial way, you should wait to create the article until there are. I recommend working on the article in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:Ozneil/... such as User:Ozneil/Sandbox)., that way I can help you along the way and we can move it to the mainspace (articles that don't have a prefix in front) when it's ready. Lastly, you should not write the article if you're closely involved in the subject, e.g. financially, as that would be a conflict of interest. Rather, you should wait for someone else to write it. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 10:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good evening, Ozneil. When you said that you are the author of both pages, do you mean that you are the author of this website? If so, then you can release the material from copyright and the material can be restored. There are several ways that you can prove that you are the copyright owner. The easiest and most certain, of course, is to change the copyright notice at the bottom of the other website to a GFDL-compliant license. Failing that, you can add a note to the other website documenting concurrent release or you can send an email from an address authorized to administer that other website. See WP:CP for the specific details of how to prove that you are the actual copyright holder.

By the way, I'm going to guess from some of the comments in the early history that, whether or not you are the actual copyright holder for the website, you do appear to have a close relationship with the subject. I would strongly recommend that you read our materials on editing when there is a potential conflict of interest. When you are closely associated with a topic, it is almost always a good idea to let someone else write the article. Rossami (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Yes I am the author of this website. I have sent the following email as one of the options you have suggested above (thank-you):

From: Neil Robertson [1] Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 10:47 AM To: 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' Subject: Somerville Ecovillage Copyright

I am the copyright holder of the Somerville Ecovillage web site at http://www.somervilleecovillage.com.au

I am sending this email in response to comments from Rossami on my talk page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ozneil as I am trying to get a copy of the deleted Somerville Ecovillage article.

Thank-you,

Neil Robertson

Yes I do have a close relationship to the project and make no secret of this. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest as defined here and am happy to discuss. I plan to rewrite the article from scratch in my userspace and have it reviewed before attempting to recreate the article. Ozneil (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Neil. Thanks for keeping me updated with the discussion, I do sometimes forget to check back. I'm not sure if I made my points clear enough, so to reiterate, the problems I saw with the article were as follows:
  1. the copyright problem. This won't be resolved until you release the material under a license compatible under the GFDL following the steps at the page I linked to above. I don't believe the email you wrote is enough.
  2. The neutrality problems. I felt that the article viewed the village in too positive a light, which is why I said it read like an ad. This is why I think it would still be a problem to use the material from your site, even if it's licensed appropriately.
  3. The conflict of interest. I know you will try to be neutral, but I'm not convinced that's enough. How about this: why don't you post a note to the conflict of interest noticeboard, explaining who you are, what your connection is to the subject and asking what they think about how you should proceed. That way, the decision about whether there's a conflict of interest won't be being made by the person whose conflict of interest it potentially is. (Make sure you explain that you're not just going to recreate the article as it was when it was deleted, or they'll just say not to)
  4. Referencing and notability. You must make sure that every claim you make is attributable to a reliable source. If you can't do that, the subject is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
Sorry, I know this is a lot. Really I'd strongly recommend that you wait and let someone uninvolved write the article, that's my take on it. But if you can do all this, and other folks don't think the potential conflict of interest is a problem, I'm glad to help however I can. Peace, delldot talk 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)