User talk:LauraDowney

Hello all!

Copyright problems with GR:EEN - Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order
Hello. Concerning your contribution, GR:EEN - Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order, 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). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/green/. As a copyright violation, GR:EEN - Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. GR:EEN - Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order 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 Talk:GR:EEN - Europe& 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 Talk:GR:EEN - Europe& 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 Talk:GR:EEN - Europe&.

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. Huon (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
Laura,

I see that you have requested feedback on your work, and you have received feedback in the form of having your article deleted. I suspect that is not the feedback you expected, however Wikipedia takes copyright infringement issues fairly seriously. That being said, I had a chance to look at your article before it was deleted, and the feedback I would provide based on that glance is as follows:

It is not clear that the GR:EEN project is notable. Wikipedia has guidelines for which articles should be included and which should not, generally based on whether the subject of the article has received attention from independent sources, which is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. The article you had written included a number of references, and while none of the references were linked to external content so it is hard to judge, the references all appeared to be articles that the project might have relied on to justify its work, but not articles about the project itself.

If you intend to re-create the article, I have several suggestions:
 * 1) Write the project description in your own words, to avoid any possible copyright infringement.
 * 2) Avoid all of the jargon.  The description of the article at the site where the copyrighted material was found (as well as duplicate text in several other sites around the net) contains a fair amount of gobbledygook that is relatively meaningless to normal speakers of English who are not steeped in the jargon of social science.
 * 3) Provide citations to any articles in journals, newspapers, etc, that indicate that the world at large has taken notice of this project.

Good luck! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion due to being a copyright violation (sorry for that, but copyright is important). Let me add a few additional comments if you intend to recreate the article.
 * The title seemed overly complicated to me. The University of Warwick refers to the project as "Global Re-ordering: Evolution through European Networks (GREEN)"; a suitable title for a Wikipedia article might be Global Re-ordering: Evolution through European Networks. Still lengthy, but at least it's the project's official name.
 * I can only repeat what WikiDan61 said about sources. The article gave a list of papers, but as far as I could tell, most of them predated the GREEN research project and thus cannot establish the project's notability. The best source I found on the web was this, where a research institute not directly involved with GREEN mentions it. Whether that's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is debatable, though.
 * Yours, Huon (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reference Huon provided is from a group that is directly involved with the GR:EEN project, so it really is not a valid citation to establish notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Dear WikiDan61

Thank you for your valuable feedback.
 * 1) Regarding the copyright infringment, I own the text which has been written on both the Wikipedia page and the website it links to (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/green/). The text on the website is temporary whilst the full website is being designed. As soon as the new website is designed and live, the text will be re-written and updated. I hope that this no longer constitutes a copyright infringement.
 * 2) I will happily remove the jargon to make it more accessible, I did not realise that it was so present. This is very valuable feedback indeed!
 * 3) The project is funded under the European Commission and its research is for a notable cause. As of yet, the project is still in its early stages but is working towards something of use and value. I would also like to add that there are many Wiki pages for other FP7 projects Category:Seventh Framework Programme projects which have no links at all to substantiate their notability. This is why I thought it would be suitable to creat such a page. I assumed that its research aim and connection to the European Commission was notable in and of itself. What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you so very much for your time, it is much appreciated.

Kind wishes, Laura LauraDowney (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Kind wishes and thanks for your time, Laura Downey


 * Concerning the notability issue: Nothing is considered "notable in and of itself" if no reliable sources can be found to back up the claim of notability. While similar articles may exist, every article has to stand on its own merits (and personally I'd say that quite a few of those other articles should be deleted as non-notable, too). If sources are hard to find right now, I'd suggest waiting a little, and maybe in a while there will be newspaper articles or something like that when the project has been up and running for a while. Then the article could be recreated.
 * As an aside, I had a look at the University of Warwick's copyright statement, and according to them, everything published on their websites is automatically copyrighted by the University "unless otherwise stated". Even though you wrote that text I'm not sure whether you still hold the copyright or whether you'd at least have to add some sort of statement to that effect to the Warwick page. Rewriting the article from scratch might be easier than getting the copyright sorted out. Huon (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to Huon's comments, and specific to your point #3 above: the presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to create more bad articles. I have had my doubt about many of the FP7 projects: not every project funded by a major organization is de facto notable.  If this were the case, every local theater group in the United States that receives an NEA grant would be notable; but such is surely not the case. Each project must stand on its own notability, independent of the notability of the group that funds it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Dear Dan and Huon

Thank you for your comments and reviews. In time I will re-write the article when there are publications etc to back it up more fully. However, for now, is there a way to remove the article's presence from wiki? It still shows up in google searches but then links to a deleted page. I feel that this could do the project more harm than good! I would appreciate your advice.

Thank you again, Laura

LauraDowney (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not, and that's Google's fault (or the fault of whatever other search engine you're using). Most search engines continually crawl the web and cache pages to make their searches faster.  It may take some time for deleted pages to get cleared from the search engines caches.  I don't know how you would resolve that issue.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GR EEN big caps.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:GR EEN big caps.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)