User talk:AnooshBoz

 Welcome, !

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help pages
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tutorial
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Please note that your article about your paintings does not meet Wikipedia's notability criterion for inclusion and was therefore deleted. When you recreated it, it was moved to your user space. You moved it back, so it has been deleted again.

Do not recreated this article again. Thank you. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability and copyrights
Hi Anoosh

Two points to consider. First, you managed to write an article about your father that fails at any point to even assert notability. The article didn't give any reasons at all why he should be in an encyclopedia. It was a just a flowery advertisement for... something. On my third reading of it, I managed to work out that the guy sometimes painted, but I got no information on what, where, why, when or how. The article didn't point me to any useful third-party websites about the gentleman's work to allow me to try to follow it up - it just pointed, several times, away from Wikipedia and toward a personal website.

Second, you say that this article was written by the LA Times. If that is the case, then you would be in breach of the LA Times's copyright on the article. As the page where you submitted the article clearly says, Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable.

I would suggest you recreate the article here. This is in your user space and you can do what you like (within reason) in that area. When you've created the article, citing your sources, asserting notability and not breaching copyright law, come back to me and I'll happily arrange to have the article peer reviewed and considered for inclusion within our encyclopedia. Hope this helps. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 21:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. You wrote: "I still don't understand how notability can be verified when I cannot quote public news or info about him from different sources". Quoting different sources is encouraged. Copying entire paragraphs and articles is not. When you quote a source, provide a citation for it.


 * You wrote "Even though I could just rewrite it in my own words and state the source of something similar they said, Is that what you or Wikipedia wants?". Yes, that is what Wikipedia wants. Original articles that do not violate copyright that you then release under the GDFL free licence. You cannot release the copyright work of others - that is illegal.


 * You wrote "I don't understand how I can post it or state anything about him if you are telling me I am violating public knowledge and or copyright about words that were spoken of about my father, please explain.". You originally told me that the article you posted was a direct copy from the LA Times. You are not allowed to post material in bulk from other copyright sources. You may quote small amounts, but you must provide a citation for each quote.


 * You wrote: "I don't like the assumption of you stating that I am just doing a flowery advertisement" I said that the article read like a flowery advertisement. I have no judgement to offer on whether you intended that or not.


 * You wrote: "Either way if you cannot or do not know how to explain it to me or help me please refer me to a moderator that may actually be able to help". I suggest this indicates that you didn't read all of my previous post. Here is the important bit again. Please read this. Do not assume you know what it says, or skip over it and ask the same questions again. Read the following:


 * I would suggest you recreate the article here. This is in your user space and you can do what you like (within reason) in that area. When you've created the article, citing your sources, asserting notability and not breaching copyright law, come back to me and I'll happily arrange to have the article peer reviewed and considered for inclusion within our encyclopedia. Hope this helps.


 * I have explained what was wrong with the original article (it failed to assert notability; you admitted to stealing it from the LA Times; it was not encyclopedic in tone because it read like an advertisement). I have provided links to official Wikipedia policies so you can get more help and advice - WP:N, WP:CITE, Copyrights. I have even proposed a place to create your article where it will be immune from deletion - here - and offered to help, once you have completed the article at this location, in getting it cleaned-up, peer reviewed and published in the main encyclopedia.


 * This is far more than I am required to do by Wikipedia - it's something I've offered in order to be helpful. If you are rejecting this offer, then there is nothing more I can do for you. If you wish to complain "to a moderator", there's a slight problem as I am a moderator ("admin" as we call them here). However, you are quite welcome to seek help from Requests for mediation or skip to Requests for comment and file a case against me. ➨  Я Є  DVERS  18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Bozorgmehr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bozorgmehr.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)