User talk:Arangel1970

Speedy deletion nomination of Salisbury Catholic Parish SA


A tag has been placed on Salisbury Catholic Parish SA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA
Hi, I saw the comments you added to the AFD page. Firstly, because you haven't created or edited any other page, it's not unreasonable to ask if you have a COI. I said you might, not that you had, and I'm happy to accept your assurances on that point. You will notice in the AFD discussion that I attempted to improve the article before I noticed the copyrignt violation of the Heritage Survey. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Please note the following:
 * you did did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not normally acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. References should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * you wrote in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include:  solidly integrated by their same faith... As a welcoming and vibrant multicultural community... The vision of the Parish is: A welcoming community, United in Faith.... Many of your references were to the parish website or other affiliated sources.
 * the article was a copyright violation as indicated above.

I accept that there is a balance between encouraging new editors and maintaining standards, and I attempted a clean-up until I saw the copyright violation which gave me no choice. We often restore deleted text on request, but for legal reasons we don't do so for copyright violations.

You claim I am harassing you; it's only fair for me to point you towards WP:ANI

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Salisbury Catholic Parish
I've moved your comment on my talk page here to keep it in one place Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Hi Jimfbleak, Do you remember that you deleted the Article about the Salisbury Catholic Parish because you said that the Heritage Survey was infringing copyrights? You also mentioned that it was not an independent source. Well, first of all, I want to clarify that the Survey has requested by the City of Salisbury Council which is the local authority, not the Parish, and both corporate bodies are totally independent. Secondly, as per the Wikipedia: Non-US copyrights, section: Restored copyrights, it is suggested to use the Four-points test to determine the copyright status and in the second question is commented that: "Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Architectural works (i.e. buildings) constructed before December 1, 1990, are not copyrightable in the US". Therefore, you cannot argue that the use of the Survey constitutes and infringement to copyrights. But, if you consider also that the Survey was requested by the City of Salisbury Council and they have made public and available the information in their website; in particular, so that people be informed about the historic heritage of the buildings mentioned in the Survey. Public Domain (Wikipedia): "The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the U.S. Copyright Office) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e.that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or ... that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder". Likewise, a declaration or resolution to declare a church a heritage building is not subject to copyrights, or facts of history such as the date were a church was built. "Under copyright law, most authors own the rights to limit use of their works. However, not all works fit this description. Exceptions include works in the public domain, ... Some works created by the government or in other countries are also in the public domain". Besides, you overlooked that the Heritage Survey is in a ".gov webpage" and, in the Article of Wikipedia: Public Domain, the section about "Works ineligible for copyright protection" is clearly cited: "U.S. government works[edit] U.S. federal government works (including works prepared by the governments of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. organized territories[4]) are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105). It is not clear whether this applies world-wide -- see the CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.7 and a discussion on that at the LibraryLaw Blog. The U.S. government themselves state that they "may assert copyright outside of the United States for U.S. government works."[5] In practice, this means that much material on *.gov and *.mil, as well as material on some *.us web sites (such as the sites of the U.S. Forest Service), are in the public domain. Please note that not all such material is in the public domain, though: U.S. governmental web sites may use copyrighted works, too; either by having licensed them or under a "fair use" provision. In general, such copyrighted works on web sites of the U.S. federal government and its agencies are indicated by appropriate bylines. ... Some U.S. state and local governments also have web sites in the *.gov domain. State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain.[7] However, laws and/or court decisions in some states may place their work in the public domain. See, for example, and. ... "Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case are in the public domain. This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all “edicts of government” both domestic and foreign.[11] Arangel1970 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Response

 * You misunderstood my comment about independent sources. Although most of your references were inappropriate, this was clearly an independent third-party source
 * However, you completely misunderstand how copyright works here
 * "Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Architectural works (i.e. buildings) constructed before December 1, 1990, are not copyrightable in the US". Therefore, you cannot argue that the use of the Survey constitutes and infringement to copyrights.&mdash; the survey is not a building. What that section means is that in the US you can freely take photographs of building, not the case in some other countries.
 * that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or ... that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder".&mdash; The extended text is eligible for copyright since it's too recent for copyright to have elapsed, and there is nothing in the document to show that the authors have explicitly released it to the public domain
 * But, if you consider also that the Survey was requested by the City of Salisbury Council and they have made public and available&mdash; making publicly available is not making public domain, although that's a common misconception. PD means that you are free to copy, modify and distribute for any purpose, including commercial. I see no indication that the survey carries such a disclaimer, or that it was released into the public domain by the copyright holder
 * The US federal government is exceptional in that, unlike virtually all other publishers, nearly all its works are PD. Your survey was not produced by the US federal government nor, as far as I can see, was the survey even produced in the US. For Australian publications, your local copyright applies. The only exception to this is where a work also published in the US may have a different status there. For example, some Beatrix Potter books are now out of copyright in the US, where our servers are, and the illustrations can be posted here despite being still copyright in the UK and elsewhere.
 * Likewise, a declaration or resolution to declare a church a heritage building is not subject to copyrights, or facts of history such as the date were a church was built. &mdash; but a survey is copyright.
 * You then go on to expand at length and pointlessly on the status of US government documents, which do not apply here, since the document isn't produced by the US government or any of its agencies.
 * The .gov and .mil applies only to US government and military, not Australian.
 * "Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case are in the public domain. This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all “edicts of government” both domestic and foreign.&mdash; what's the relevance of this?. I can't see that that the survey is a law or a legal ruling, or an edict of government. It's an advisory survey with no legal force. On the contrary it says The recommendations contained in it are those of the consultants, and will not necessarily be acted upon by the Minister for Environment and Planning or the Salisbury Council.
 * We do allow a fair use provision, like File:Dark Side of the Moon.png or File:Autriservice.gif, but only for images where there is no possibility of a free image, and only for the article about that topic. It can't be applied to words, because you can always write something different (note, incidentally, that a close paraphrase is still a copyright violation)

Basically, copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied document allows free use. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

If the article is even going to be considered for inclusion, not a foregone conclusion given the notability question, you will have to write it your own words, not just copy other people's work. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)