User talk:Justiceinlaw

Welcome!

Hello, Justiceinlaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Will Beback   talk    19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of Vincent Warren


The article Vincent Warren has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bped1985 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
With regards to your edits to Targeted killing ([ history] · [ last edit]) As you have not responded to my requests in the edit history of the article to respond to the issue at Talk:Targeted killing I have raised it here Copyright problems/2012 February 8. -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having come across this from the posting at WP:CP I agree this needs discussing, at the very least. You should be aware that wikipedia works by consensus and if your action is reverted it is normal to discuss it rather than to simply redo it.  Failure to do so is considered edit warring and may, eventually, lead to a block.  WP:BRD is a useful read in this respect.  In this instance, given the potential legal problems of leaving the text in, there is even stronger reason to leave the text out and discuss the issue.  You may also be thinking that the copyright concerns are not valid given the reasonably liberal terms of use of that site.  However we require that material is released under a license that allows commercial re-use so can not use the material under the license of that site.  Please discuss this and get agreement at Talk:Targeted killing before reinserting the text. Dpmuk (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having studied your edits further it would appear that nearly all of them that have introduced text have copyright problems. Also note the image and article below that I have requested by delete.  Those notices also explain our copyright policies as well as providing many useful links.  Please read them carefully before inserting any more text or uploading more images.  If you have and questions please feel free to post here or on the talk page I mention above.  Please do not re-insert any of this text without discussion and agreement first. Dpmuk (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The copyright section of CCRjustice.org indicates that content of the website can be used for non-commercial purposes. They are also licensed by Creative Commons. Is that sufficient grounds to take language directly from the CCR's site as long as there is a hyperlink to the page from where that language comes? Is it necessary to paraphrase the content to avoid copyright violations? (Justiceinlaw (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid that we can't accept content that is for non-commercial purposes. Long ago it was decided that it was desired that content at Wikipedia would be as widely usable as possible and that includes commercially.  Although as a non-commercial organisation we would be allowed to use such text the fact that we allow commercial re-use means we cannot accept it.  See WP:NONCOM for a (little) bit more on this. Dpmuk (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, that makes sense. In the next couple of edits we'll be sure to paraphrase. (Justiceinlaw (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

Copyright problems with File:Jules Lobel.JPG
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jules Lobel.JPG, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Jules Lobel.JPG appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jules Lobel.JPG has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Jules Lobel.JPG and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Jules Lobel.JPG with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Jules Lobel.JPG.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This also applies to the text at Jules Lobel which I've requested by G12 speedy deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ragbir v. Holder


The article Ragbir v. Holder has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add a bit here as I feel you have the potential to be a productive editor and fear the messages you're getting might put you off. Firstly I wouldn't worry too much about the impersonal nature of some of the notices on this page.  Unfortunately there aren't really enough people checking new pages and the like and so often time impersonal notices will be left.  Oft times this is not a problem as the person is either experienced enough to know what to do or not the sort of editor who will stay around and make productive edits.  Unfortunately those editors in your situation often fall through the gaps a bit.  Both the community and the Wikimedia Foundation are aware of this and both are doing their best to come up with ways of solving the problem.


 * That said a quick look at Ragbir v. Holder suggests it may not be suitable for Wikipedia. If you read our notability and reliable source policies I'm sure you'll see why.  In short we require articles to show notability and this is normally shown by multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject.  While the sources you mention would be seen as reliable for the purposes of what the brief contains they are not independent and so do not help to establish notability.


 * Can I also suggest you read our neutral point of view and conflict of interest policies as you seem quite 'close' to the subjects you're editing. While your edits to date aren't really problematic in this regard having prior knowledge of these policies may help you avoid future problems.


 * If you have any questions please feel free to ask them either here or on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. If you'd prefer or I've not answered (I'm quite busy at the moment) you might want to post at our help desk. Dpmuk (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've just counted onto your use of "we'll" above. If that's we in the royal sense that's fine but if it's not you should be aware that we only allow one person to use each account - see WP:ROLE for a little bit more on this. Dpmuk (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)