User talk:NatGreene

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Whpq (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion of Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation
A tag has been placed on Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NatGreene (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) as the original author of BOTH this Wikipedia entry and the NatGreene.org website, it is a bit confusing as to how one might infringe on their own writing - particularly when one is writing about themselves in both sites.

However, if there is a footnote, disclaimer, asterisk to copyleft that has been overlooked please let us know and so the appropriate changes can be made. We are a small organization with a minimal amount of resources and would seek to capitalize on much of our prior efforts to share with others.

Upon further reading, we have added this phrase to the footer of our NatGreene.org site "Unless expressly stated, everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." which was tweaked as described in "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Hoping that this resolves ant confusion - and thank you in advance for your assistance in helping us to avoid these types of full body deletions.

NatGreene (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC) the following has been added to the NatGreene site footer "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

similarly this will be added to the Greensboropa site to avoid any issues there

April 2009
The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. History section copied from http://www.greensboropa.com/uploads/Greensboro_Elm_Str_FINAL_DRAFT.pdf Whpq (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Whpq (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NatGreene (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) While the basis of self-promotion is arguably the chief concern described above and there are certainly other listings throughout Wikiland that have exceeded these boundaries. The listing related to Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation was originally written to be factual though topical while being sufficient enough to provide an understanding of the organizations past and current goals. Likewise, the Greensboro PA listing, contains original and modified content derived from our own publicly funded studies intended for public review. It has been my own personal understanding in conversations with others, that Wiki provides information about various subjects and that information would be further enhanced by the participants interested and knowledgeable in that subject area. From this collaboration spawns richer content. To this end we would ask anyone to join with us to add, append, correct and improve on the content that begins from our original entry. If you have any suggestions as to how small organizations with limited resources can best use Wiki to disseminate the factual content of its organization and its history, this would also be appreciated.

Lastly, as an aside - if you can point us to a section in Wiki that deals with these authoring issues in the scope described above it would be incredibly helpful. Many times small organizations have individuals that wear multiple hats - these tend to be some of the most well informed individuals capable of writing in some very esoteric subjects. Sadly, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy on the surface appears to remove those very people from the Yellow Tailed Horn Capped Barn Gobbler Society from writing about their namesake creature - for if not them, who would speak for the Yellow Tailed Horn Capped Barn Gobbler. Though the latter point is well taken, Wiki should not provide any forum for the hawking of a latest book, product, political recruitment or service - which would appear to be the spirit of the "Neutral Point of View" policy

NatGreene (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Follow up and course of action The above report and survey will be re-posted to further acknowledge that the study was created with public monies is in the public domain. Once this is posted in the next 48 hours, it should be safe to assume that its original contents will be suitable for reuse and publishing. As this is a work for hire study, it should more than meet the objectivity required for inclusion. Additionally and support of what was discussed by chzzz and also mentioned in Always better to improve rather than delete supports the notion that all articles start from somewhere. I personally would like to believe that our regional history is suitable to impart upon others curious about the western Pennsylvanian region.

Secondly, the reversion of this topic as it relates to the original copyright concern is understood and being resolved. However, the dismissal that our history (regardless of content source) being classified as CRUFT by a moderator seriously skews the validity of the comment itself. In review of the articles of Boston, Atlanta and Los Anglees - one could argue that the cruft runs amok.

Lastly, some of the information that the seniors offered to the expanded sections of the "infringing" text specifically the Navigation Co, UMWA and Community Development references were removed as well although they were original work of their own. Which provides an excellent (but now removed) example of "Always better to improve rather than delete" benefits of growing a wiki article. Personally, I would hope we can return to our expanded version shortly and build upon that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGreene (talk • contribs)

The relevant areas that you need to look at are covered in the policies related to verifiability], and [[WP:RS|reliable sources. An expert on the Yellow Tailed Horn Capped Barn Gobbler is quite welcome to contribute content for such an article, but the material would need to be verifiable through reliable sources.  Even if the contributor is the foremost expert on the Yellow Tailed Horn Capped Barn Gobbler, and it is his or her research material that forms reliable sourcing, it would still need to be demotnrated through publication, or peer review.  I hope this helps.

You may want to look into the Help Desk for general policy and editting questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These areas verifiability, and reliable sources are precisely the additional aspects that this initial historical structure was intended to provide to build a basis on. Additionally the cross-referencing provided by Wiki authoring structure would further strengthen these pages (as illustrated in the first half of the currently removed article). I have no doubt references to my neighbor as the first grandmother to visit Venus would be questioned. I do know that material garnered, referenced or otherwise inferred by the public to us has met with a considerable amount of scrutiny and sufficient moderation to limit the potential of misleading information. NatGreene (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Whpq (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

my apologies. I was placing the sig at the beginning, and I appreciate the constructive criticism NatGreene (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To summarize the resolve to our current dilemma and getting back on track


 * Release our study for reuse under GDFL with the appropriate cover
 * "This document is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike"''
 * "This document is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike"''


 * restore prior Greensboro PA Wiki work with links
 * add citation/references where text is extracted from our study
 * expand information in subcategories where appropriate and relevant to the construct of the article
 * above all provide a neutral view point with concise validated writing

Although, this is broad stroked, let me know if there is anything being overlooked.

Lastly, as in lastly for now - there appears to be some confusion on this end as to the actual reason the article was reverted. Copyright concerns are clearly understandable, are being addressed and was what was thought to be the nature of the reversion. However the CRUFT commentary has others curious if the article was even read and more importantly, how this type of wholesale editing benefits the Wiki community at large. To return to the earlier discussion of Always better to improve rather than delete in the discussion where guidance is preferred.

In review it should appear clear that the article was written to provide informational content - information that has been lacking in the Southwest Pennsylvanian area. It would be my hope that an AUTHORS INTENT helps to determine the first level of interaction when properly moderating an article and its usefulness. The initial "leave them in the dark" moderation coupled with minimal or no dialog makes the entire Wiki experiance appear very hostile which I believe is not the intent of it originators or its mission.

Looking to move along...NatGreene (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the DO but DONT issue raised on the NatGreene footer, that was more bad formatting than anything else - that has since been corrected to be GDFLish. I hope this is sufficient enough to raise the Copyright restriction NatGreene (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, COI, and other letters of the alphabet
 Chzz  ►  21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied again, in the same place linked above - have a read of that, but also, some time, please come and talk to us live, with this.  Chzz  ►  03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...and again  Chzz  ►  15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogermx (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)