User talk:Husenjo

- Krakatoa  Katie  19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ohio Public Library Information Network deletion
Hello - thanks for the message, and welcome again to Wikipedia!

Under the provisions of the DMCA and our own policies, Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations. Since no permission had been received after seven days – this particular article remained for 11 days – the article was deleted. The consequences of copyright violation can be severe, so it's not sufficient to place a note on the article's talk page claiming licensure of the content under the GFDL because anyone could do that on behalf of any company or business, with good or bad intentions. Proof of GFDL licensure is required. I understand you've begun the process for verification by emailing the Wikimedia Foundation. You should receive a reply to your email soon, but be patient – it's all volunteers, and they receive thousands of emails a day.

However, a simple copy-and-paste of the website's content is probably not be the best way to go about creating a Wikipedia article.

As an employee/interested party to the subject of an article, you and your employer should understand the English Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest and copyright. All articles must be written from a neutral point-of-view, and it can be difficult to write about an organization in this manner when an editor is a representative of that organization. Notability is a separate concern – be sure your organization meets the notability standard for organizations. Relicensure of content under the GFDL has nothing to do with notability; the article can be nominated for deletion if enough verifiable, reliable secondary sources aren't provided to establish notability.

Second, down in the "please note" section under the editing box, you'll see a warning about merciless editing – that means the original text will be, well, edited mercilessly. You and/or your group don't own the article as either its creator or as the subject of the article. It won't stay as it was initially written for very long, and you have no right to control the article's content. If there's something you don't want included in the article, rest assured that it will very likely find its way into the article eventually. Anyone can use it for any purpose or change it in any way they like, commercial or non-commercial, complimentary or derogatory, happily or angrily. This can be one of the most difficult things for organizations, businesses, and even people to understand. Corporations (and politicians) often want the Wikipedia article to be a glowing hagiography, praising their attributes and ignoring their problems. It doesn't work that way here. We're neutral and we're staying that way. :-)

Finally, if an organization doesn't want to license their site content under the GFDL, don't simply post its text here, because that's what it will be doing. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" means licensing it under the GFDL; further, you can't say that the text is okay to use by Wikipedia but no one else may use it. Posting it here means granting permission to use it for not only Wikipedia but Wikipedia's mirrors and forks and everyone else in creation. However, any verbatim, complete redistribution by others requires they post the full text of the GFDL too (hence the link to the GFDL just under the editing box), so in practice it's unlikely that would happen.

If your organization does decide to relicense the site content under the GFDL by using it in an article, leave me another message when you receive a reply to your email and I'll walk you through the steps to ensure the article isn't deleted for copyright reasons – again, notability is a separate issue.

I promise I'm not trying to scare you away, because slogging through the policies gives me a headache too. I _do_ want you to understand the way things work around here. Wikipedia is based on free content, so it would be much easier if the article was written by a third party and in a way that does not infringe on the organization's copyright, so the copyright polka can be taken off our dance card to be replaced with a nice Wikipedia waltz. You could try contributing to an existing article to get your feet wet; pick a subject about which you're interested and jump in, or use the 'random article' link in the 'interaction' box. Everyone has something to offer Wikipedia!

Please let me know if you have more questions or need assistance. The links in my welcome message above this one are good places to start. You can also place this tag =>   on your talk page and an experienced editor will stop by shortly. Happy editing – Krakatoa  Katie  19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:OPLINNetworkAccess.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:OPLINNetworkAccess.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. §hep Talk  23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:University System of Ohio logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:University System of Ohio logo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)