User talk:Zulux1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Lupus et Agnus
A tag has been placed on Lupus et Agnus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Lupus et Agnus. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Justpassin (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry about that. If you really think the deletion was illegimate, please go to deletion review and state your case there instead. (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's not a copyright violation or anything, but all the content was in Latin. This is the English Wikipedia, you'll find the Latin Wikipedia three doors down and hang a left. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There are a few issues here, some of them go beyond this DRV. You seem to have had a template in mind, but created it in article space. That article has been compared with the one of the Latin wikipedia and essentially found identical, as it also basically contains the same original text. This isn't surprising since there is indeed only one common ancient source but it is already inside: the deletion reason essentially amounts to it being a duplicate inside the wikimedia family. The right place for such source text isn't even the Latin wikipedia, but the Latin wikisource, where it is indeed kept at [2], so you can now link directly there, eg. via
{{{1}}}. or the like. You have now started to work on Sicilian language templates for the same same story, that seem to have been copied form some website. So thy are probably copyrighted. In any case, this wikipedia isn't the right place for them. I'm afraid the new templates need either to be speedily deleted as copyright violation or be put up for deletion at WP:TfD as more appropriate for some thing like the Sicilian wikisource. Or if you follow this reasoning, you can mark them yourself with {db-author}. Besides, you have to make sure that 'your work' here isn't original research. So it is endorse for this deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few issues here, some of them go beyond this DRV. You seem to have had a template in mind, but created it in article space. That article has been compared with the one of the Latin wikipedia and essentially found identical, as it also basically contains the same original text. This isn't surprising since there is indeed only one common ancient source but it is already inside: the deletion reason essentially amounts to it being a duplicate inside the wikimedia family. The right place for such source text isn't even the Latin wikipedia, but the Latin wikisource, where it is indeed kept at [2], so you can now link directly there, eg. via
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Suggestion What you need to do is add some substantial sourced commentary and background about the fable. I gather you are doing original research on it? You cant use that, at least until its been formally published,but you can certainly discuss what information is available in other sources. Since the text is very short and very much out of copyright, it would not be inappropriate to include it in a more substantial article. If you do this, just rewrite the article. DGG (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Based on this deletion, and discussion at Wikipedia:DRV, I've decided to suspend any further contributions on the subject. Regrettably, I've also removed the seven fable translations from the Gallo-Sicilian page. --Zulux1 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's a pity you couldn't have finished it off - I think it was quite interesting, it's a fascinating subject about which very few people have the slightest idea. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I regret that above quoted discussion seems to have prompted you to leave: Beside trying to explain the deletion of the Latin version, my comments were mostly intended to clarify the role of the templates and sources and their copyright status. I've qualified at the DRV my stance towards the translations somewhat, but they would at least need to be attributed on the level of language / template and translator, and there are other reasons not do to this in template form. All my additional remarks above were mostly intended to clarify the handling of the templates and sources while giving the customary advise on original research. They were never intended as comments on the subject or the merits of your project and if my my remarks sounded rude or cold, apologies. I don't understand, though, how the reason you give on your user page relates to the discussion above. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
