User talk:Brtles
- Welcome!
Hello, Brtles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.
Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!
P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.
Hello Brtles,
It seems to me that an article you worked on, Harvington school, may be copied from http://www.harvingtonschool.com/Default.aspx?Page=SchoolHistory. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.
It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.
Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Madmanbot, I have referenced the page and have permission from the author of the website to use it.
Thanks.
Brtles (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Brtles. Thank you for your response. We do need verification of license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In order for us to use this text, we need the copyright holder to issue a license (we recommend Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries). Pending the production of this, the article has been blanked, but it can easily be restored once the license is verified.
Dear Moonriddengirl, Please can you restore Harvington School. 1> There is no 'copyright' paid for on the page and therefore there is no license to issue. 2> I have been acting as an agent thereof. I have left messages on the talk page, but have not heard anything back. If in doubt please contact admin@harvingtonschool.com, aevans@harvingtonschoo.com or tweet @harvingtonprep
Brtles (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia considers everything on the web to be copyrighted by default. Additionally, the page says: "Copyright © 2010 Harvington Prep School. All rights reserved." Again, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- If perchance the copyright holder is not willing to release the material under compatible license, the content can be rewritten. Sometimes people are willing to allow material to be used "on Wikipedia", for instance, but this is not sufficient for us. Should that turn out to be the case here, the content can be rewritten at [1], or simply leave a note at the talk page and the copied content will be removed when the listing period expires. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Verification of license
[edit]Hello, Brtles. I'm afraid I cannot restore it until we have received a verification of license. Again, the process for this is described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The page from which content is copied says, "Copyright © 2010 Harvington Prep School. All rights reserved", but even if it did not the content would be automatically protected under the US laws that govern us. If the process is unclear to you, please let me know, and I'll try to clarify. In essence, we either need the school to place a copyright release on the website or themselves to mail us a release as described on that page. The form Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries can be used for this purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Another potental issue here, how is Brtles related to the school if I may ask? Note that there now lies a very real WP:Conflict of interest if Brtles says that he/she's acting as an agent for the school. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dave1185: We can address COI issues in the content once we ensure the text is indeed freely licensable. I looked at it and there are some parts that need rewriting. --NeilN talk to me 21:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yup and those as well... need to rewrite it in neutral style. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dave1185: We can address COI issues in the content once we ensure the text is indeed freely licensable. I looked at it and there are some parts that need rewriting. --NeilN talk to me 21:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The license is now verified. Brtles, in answer to your question, it usually takes a few days after a letter is sent for an OTRS volunteer to process it, but since you told me it was in I was able to handle it more quickly. User:Dave1185, now that the "blocker" issue is handled, it's open for review for neutrality or any other issues to make sure it is compliant with our own local policies and guidelines. :)
Brtles, what's being discussed here is Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and the policies that they reinforce - especially those on neutrality and reliable, independent sourcing. Frequently content published on official sites is not appropriate, or not entirely appropriate, for Wikipedia, so if often most be modified to bring it in line with our own purposes. This is of course understandable - official websites are naturally interested in promoting their entities. :) Our purpose at Wikipedia is simply to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, and while we can use official sites to add information about the subjects themselves we try to be quite careful to be sure that anything critical or laudatory about the subject comes from an independent source.
Thank you for providing the verification of license! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi All, Just something for you guys as pro-wikipedians to think about how all of this might be perceived by a new editor such as myself. The only part of this article that was taken from the official website was the history as no other history was available. Everything else I wrote myself and attempted to do so in a style that was utilised by other schools within the London Area. It utilises sources over than the school such as the department for education and independent schools association. If you compare this to other schools in london or across the UK I've tried to follow the style. If you view the history, I've had a bit of hard time. Instead of help rectifying any general mistakes that I would not be aware of with regard to formatting I feel like I've been jumped on. I read an article a while back about the declining number of wiki editors and perhaps part of this might be to do with it. A positive experience for new editors might encourage further edits in other areas. With regards to COI, my main aim was to add information on the wiki about the school as when I was browsing the information about local schools I saw that there as not a page about this historical school. I have no financial or business relationship with the school. (I work in healthcare). I asked permission of the headteacher to transfer the historical information across as I had not seen any, anywhere else. I have no awareness of the language / policy or procedure that this site appears to be bogged down in. I am from the UK and a lot of the terminology that you use, is not relevant to a UK market. Please compare the school to others in the area and I have tried to make it identical to the other formats. bw Brtles (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Brtles, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Brtles! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Note
[edit]I've unprotected the article. I didn't think to do this originally because articles are not usually protected - the only reason this one was protected was because you removed the template without resolving the problem as the template instructed. The template you removed said "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Frequently, people who remove those templates anyway are blocked to protect Wikipedia; that the article was protected instead is because I believed you were operating in good faith.
I'm sorry if you feel that your handling was not gentle, but the way I see it the note you were given had all the information you needed to resolve the issue properly; it was certainly not intended to be hostile. I realize it's an inconvenience, but copyright is a legal matter, and we can't afford to take chances. If you find something alarming, the best thing to do is probably to slow down and re-read the advice you've been given. Madmanbot linked you to the help desk; you were given a link to the Teahouse. Either of those forums could have discussed with you proper steps for resolving the problem. Help is available, but you have to reach out for it. :)
In terms of issues within the article, some of the tone, as mentioned above, may be appropriate for the site itself, but does not fit Wikipedia. For instance, the article says, "utilises the best in modern technology to enrich the curriculum", " an impressive art studio", "well stocked libraries". Text such as this does not meet our core content policy of neutrality - we don't assess the subjects we write about; we simply report what reliable, unconnected sources say about them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Harvington School for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvington School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.