User talk:Prokopenya Viktor/Archive2

Fizber (internet company)

I have nominated Fizber (internet company) for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizber (internet company) for an explanation and the discussion. --- RockMFR 06:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fizber (internet company)

An editor has nominated Fizber (internet company), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizber (internet company) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Invitations :)

Hi, I'll have a look at it, but I advise you against adding loads of messages to the talk pages of random editors, it is frowned on by a lot of people and could get you into trouble. Regards, English peasant 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, English peasant. I'll take your advice into account. It was my first nfD, but nobody replied to it, that is why I was trying to attract the attention of on-line editors. -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your notice on my (and 9 other) talk pages

Hi, I don't know why you have asked for my opinion, since I have not been involved with this article (or similar articles) in the past. I note that you have posted the same notice on the talk pages of 9 other people; this action may be seen as improper, have you already read Wikipedia:Canvassing ? Cheers, Schutz (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it. Thanks for the link. As I see It takes a lot of time to gain an understanding of all wiki rules :) I will try to extend my knowledge. -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This can get you blocked per Wikipedia:Canvassing. Not a good idea. -- SECisek (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an innocent mistake and doesn't happen again, there no harm done. English peasant 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

SECisek, of course my canvassing will never happen again! Thanks for your warning. -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,English peasant, for your explanations -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Total revenue test.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Total revenue test.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Normative structure

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Normative structure, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.geocities.com/~n4bz/law/lulaw11.htm. 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) 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copying text from sources

Hi, please take a look at WP:COPYVIO and understand that any text that is substantially similar to text from a source needs to be quoted. Some of the articles you have contributed to had segments of text clearly copied from the sources (some were caught by the automated bot, some I checked by hand). While in many cases, you noted a source for the text, if you are quoting from the text, you need to indicate this with quotation marks or other means described in WP:QUOTE. Further, A Wikipedia article cannot be composed primarily of quotations from a source. Please consider these rules and guidelines in your future editing. --Marcinjeske (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attention and pointing out the inaccuracies in the submitted articles. They could be a matter of inattention to the Wikipedia rules. All of the articles were written with mentioning of the source of the original material. I hope, after secondary more detailed revision these articles will correspond with Wikipedia rules and in such a way will find their place in the encyclopedia. -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Included here to refer generally to several recent articles:

I have edited the Normative structure into a form that at least does not cause Wikipedia:Copyright problems but still is bad for Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text and other guidelines, as well as no longer really being an article. You have to understand, that is significant parts of a copyrighted work are added to Wikipedia without the explicit permission of the owner, Wikipedia could be sued by the owner. That would be bad. Wikipedia must follow the copyright laws of the country where the servers physically exist (USA) and those laws are very strict in the manner in which a persons words can be reused.

A couple of important points:

• If you are going to quote from a source, you need to be very clear who said or wrote those words. In the case of this article, while the topic is Nlklas Luhmann's work, the author (and presumably the copyright owner) is Wallace H. Provost Jr. - therefore, if we quote from that work (http://www.geocities.com/~n4bz/law/lulaw1.htm), we must attribute those quotations to Provost, not Luhmann.
• If we are quoting a sentence, we need to stay as close to the original as possible. Besides accurately representing the words of the source, this also avoids the possibility of changing the meaning of a quote. For example:
  • Your sentence: "According to Luhmann, through legal structures norms are counter factually stabilized, while the norms fixed by the legal system have no social justification for their existence."
  • Original: "When we say along with Luhmann that through legal structures norms are counter factually stabilized we mean that the norms fixed by the legal system have no social justification for their existence"
  • Your use of the word "while" changed the sentence to imply he was discussing two different cases, when in fact he was providing more information about a single case.
• Which brings me to a more vital point. Changing individual words or moving around phrases in a sentence in order to hide the fact that the sentence is quoted from a source is highly discouraged. I realize you did it in good faith.. and tried to point to where the text came from, but generally such editing would be considered a deceptive way to hide copyright infringement.
• Assuming we are attributing copyrighted work correctly, there is the issue of how much we can use. Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text is most applicable in this case. My judgement is that the article as it stands depends too much on quoted text, and the amount of quoted text is too extensive. (But I will leave it to other editors to deal with that issue.)

I realize that such restrictions seem tedious, but in US jurisdiction where Wikipedia operates, these are all serious issues. While this particular author may not sue Wikipedia... that risk is to great, and we need to follow the fundamental principle of observing copyright. I will check the other articles, but chances are I will need to revert to the copyright notice. Remember, when you are contributing to Wikipedia, you need to read and understand the (preferably multiple) sources and write about the topic in your own words. While the ideas and facts may be the same, the expression in writing needs to be your own. --Marcinjeske (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-Bureaucratic Organization

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Post-Bureaucratic Organization, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.heckscher.us/{Heckscher}%20Defining%20the%20post-bureaucratic%20type.doc. 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) 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have removed the "copyvio" tag from this article without any justification - the apparently copyright text is all still present. I have replaced the tag. Please stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and do not remove tags like this without explanation and good reason. Wikipedia takes the law of copyright very seriously. Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody used my registered wikipedia login in my office computer. I’ve deleted his (or her) “works”, copied from different sites (see all the details in my comments from “My contributions”). --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mental act

A tag has been placed on Mental act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. 9Nak (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody used my registered wikipedia login in my office computer. I’ve deleted his (or her) “works”, copied from different sites (see all the details in my comments from “My contributions”). --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Mental act, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. 9Nak (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody used my registered wikipedia login in my office computer. I’ve deleted his (or her) “works”, copied from different sites (see all the details in my comments from “My contributions”). --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuovi Nuovi

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nuovi Nuovi, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://the-artists.org/movement/Nuovi_Nuovi.html. 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) 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Nuovi Nuovi

A tag has been placed on Nuovi Nuovi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody used my registered wikipedia login in my office computer. I’ve deleted his (or her) “works”, copied from different sites (see all the details in my comments from “My contributions”). --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)