User talk:Sgetmanenko

Pine Glenn Cove

Greetings! I have reverted your edits because, regardless of the sourcing, the anecdotes/poetry about the resort is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Likewise, "beautiful" and similar adjectives from the intro have been deleted, since they were unsourced (and vague anyway). —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, my more severe concern is that the wording comes from a newspaper. Newspapers, etc. are meant to be used as secondary sources to support articles, but the articles themselves should be written in the editors' own words. The concern there is infringing about copyright or plagiarizing another work. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment I was referring to is "Much of the wording now used in the article comes from Deseret News" (emphasis added). Had you said that much of the information in the article came from it, there would be no problem. My concern was the implication that the article text was copied from the article--which, since it's offline, I had no way to verify whether it was or not. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, at this point, the only things deleted are the memoirs (which I don't see how they're relevant to an encyclopedia article), the adjective "beautiful" in the intro (now reworded to standard "(subject) is..." format for intros), and this sentence: "Beautiful geographic setting and significant landscape features -- outdoor fireplaces, a pond, retaining walls and steps -- made Pine Glenn Cove a welcome place for these families and their friends who wished to escape exhausting heat and buzz of the cities." It just reads too much like ad copy, and I haven't figured out how to reword it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a note that I did post to your talk page regarding the edits. I would have been within normal policy--though not courtesy--to just make the changes with "rv - peacock terms, firsthand accounts" in the edit summary, nary a word here or on the article talk page, and no other explanation. Standard procedure is to be bold in editing, and that includes making drastic changes like that first and discussing later. Again, but for some content being clearly outside of guidelines (the anecdotes) and the concerns I noted above about copyright violations, I would not have reverted back so quickly without intervening discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

...sigh...

We'll see what happens... Alliedhealth 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to him (or her, or it). I started, and I am now done contributing to WP - all in about 24 hours. Apparently, he must have thought that good contributors would risk contributing huge amounts of material on their first edit. Instead, I contributed a link, and if I did it properly, and it was acceptable, I was ready to contribute more. Instead, done and done. We all have better things to do with our time. I'll leave the twiddling to the tiddlywinks. Alliedhealth 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Directly from WP's policy page User_pages: "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Which I did. And it was deleted. Thanks WP. I'm gone for good. You either lie about the policies, or wield the sword in disregard of the policies. One or the other. Alliedhealth 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm confused...C.Fred

C.Fred couldn't have said it better. OOT. Out Of Touch.

Penn State Law Review

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Penn State Law Review, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.dsl.psu.edu/journals/lawreview.cfm. 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.

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) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pine-glenn-cove-porch.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Pine-glenn-cove-porch.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)