User talk:Seal67

Welcome. An article you created was deleted as a copyright violation from [www.helium.com/tm/744644/there-personalities-shaped-course]. Wikipedia articles may not contain copyrighted text. Please check our WP:Copyright pages for more info on this. Fram (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Louis mbanefo
A tag has been placed on Louis mbanefo 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 include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
You must take up the issue of the actual deletion with the deleting admin (that wasn't me). However, you must understand that whilst the original bears protective copyright markings, wikipedia cannot simply accept your assurances that you are the author, and that you are free to licence the text. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me chime in here (as the deleting admin); the whole thing is not so easy...please take the time and read the page about copyright, and see also here for starters; in short: you have to provide proof that you are the copyright-holder and provide that proof to meta-wiki; as the user above said: it is not enough that you assure you are the copyright-holder, you simply have to prove it. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, all I can say that this is quite extreme and is contrary to the spirit of the website you seek to promote. I have read the Copyright policy carefully and also professionally I am in a position as a Copyright Lawyer to say to you that as the author of the article, I have a right to reproduce it on Wikipedia for public use, the question being for me to provide proof that I am the author of the  said blog which copyright in your deletion notice you clearly state that I have blatantly infringed. My position is that the commonsense question is thus: a. Did I publish the article in the blog? The answer being yes; b. Secondly can I prove I published it- The answer in simple terms being yes, since i. the said article contains a huge notice with  clear consent placed by me, authorising publication on Wikipedia; ii. I have placed another article on the said blog clearly identifying my disagreement with your deletion and continued refusal to review this, which in itself clearly proves authorship. If you wish for me to go to a deletion review, then so be it. I however strongly believe that this is highly unreasonable and completely unnecessary. This is an article I spent several hours researching and publishing on a substantial and historically significant personality, with all facts verified by the family of the said gentleman, which I seek to share with the world, not for any benefit to myself but to posterity which is what I believe Wikipedia is all about, if on a whim you can delete the article and even with all necessary proof you insist on maintaining your position, then I shall go through the review process, but only on grounds of principle simply because I am completely disillusioned with a process, where such an action can be taken without even the benefit of sensible review. Seal67 (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the world is chock full of people making invalid claims to own copyright, and as such it is necessary to take claims with a pinch of salt.
 * I no longer have the URL for the blog to view your additions, however if you have added a statement granting permission for use of the text on Wikipedia, then there is still a copyright issue. Wikipedia cannot accept text that has permission only for use on Wikipedia, because it allows its content to be copied and re-used by others. GFDL licencing is required.
 * If the blog makes it clear that the text is GFDL licenced, then there is no need to jump through the hoops of deletion review. Just create the article again (as Louis Mbanefo with correct capitralisation please).
 * You complain that deletion is done on a whim without a sensible review. I would disagree. Deletion takes place rapidly once a prima facie case of copyright violation has been shown. In this case the fact that the article was an exact copy of a piece of text that asserted copyright made such a case. Wikipedia cannot indulge in lengthy discussion of whether a piece is a copyvio, whilst continuing to show the text. If it did, I have little doubt that your fellow copyright lawyers would make much of the fact that action to rectify a violation was not taken in a timely fashion.
 * In recreating the article, you should ensure that it conforms to WP:MOS - start with a short (1-2 sentence) lead briefly describing him, with his name in bold text, then split the article up into sections.
 * You should also cite your sources inline, and add a references section. Wikipedia requires that articles are sourced.
 * If you need assistance on formatting the article for Wikipedia, just ask.
 * Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, whilst I do not agree with you in the sense that I still maintain that the policy does not apply where the person placingthe article is the author, i welcome the fact that you have made constructive suggestions towards resolution, rather than a blanket "sorry no can do", which position the deleting admin adopted. My objection was not to initial deletion but to a failure to even consider the evidence of authorship- which I provided- that is my main grouse. In the interest of a constructive resolution, I shall repost the article as suggested. For the saek of good order, I have attached a link to the original article with the necessary amendment. Thanks Seal67 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Chuck nduka-eze for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck nduka-eze 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/Chuck nduka-eze until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ... disco spinster   talk  15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chuck nduka-eze


A tag has been placed on Chuck nduka-eze, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Chuck nduka-eze for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck nduka-eze 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/Chuck nduka-eze& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ... disco spinster   talk  18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)