User talk:Neuron1970

Speedy deletion nomination of Sultan Tarlacı


A tag has been placed on Sultan Tarlacı 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 clear 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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. Crusio (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I deleted the page Sultan Tarlacı because the content was too close to the content of. There are situations where we find that the Wikipedia content is original and some other site copies or adapts the Wikipedia information, leading to a false positive. However, we opted to take the safe route, and can restore the article if there are no problems. I cannot ascertain the history of the other site, so if you could shed some light on the situation, it would be helpful.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)