User talk:Ecombmiami: Difference between revisions
Philosopher (talk | contribs) m →URL & Copyright: Please sign responses. Thanks |
Ecombmiami (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
While works of the ''Federal Government'' are not copyrightable, works of other governments (including Miami-Dade County) '''''are''''' copyrightable. If you can provide evidence that your usage is allowable under [[Wikipedia:Fair Use]] or that it isn't copyrighted, then you can use the material. Otherwise the presumption has to be that it is under copyright. Sorry. --[[User:Tim4christ17|Tim4christ17]] <sup>[[User talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
While works of the ''Federal Government'' are not copyrightable, works of other governments (including Miami-Dade County) '''''are''''' copyrightable. If you can provide evidence that your usage is allowable under [[Wikipedia:Fair Use]] or that it isn't copyrighted, then you can use the material. Otherwise the presumption has to be that it is under copyright. Sorry. --[[User:Tim4christ17|Tim4christ17]] <sup>[[User talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Also, if you could please sign your responses with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, it would be much appreciated, as it leaves a signature that links to your user page, facilitating communication. Thanks. --[[User:Tim4christ17|Tim4christ17]] <sup>[[User talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
:Also, if you could please sign your responses with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, it would be much appreciated, as it leaves a signature that links to your user page, facilitating communication. Thanks. --[[User:Tim4christ17|Tim4christ17]] <sup>[[User talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
I think we have a miscommunication with respect to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has particular guidelines about what is "notable". I understand what you're trying to achieve, but please read the guidelines for web page notability, original research, and especially conflict of interest. Tlesher 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"DOCUMENTING WHO IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUTURE OF THE EARTH/NESTED COMMUNITY THEREIN" IS KNOWLEDGE. DOCUMENTING WHERE WE DO IT IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
web page notability |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE ARE NOT A SERVICE NOR A WEBSITE; WE ARE A CAUSE. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS ARE CURRENT EVENTS. INITIATIVES SUCH AS OURS IMPACT HISTORICAL SIGNIFIGANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PERSONEL AND MOMENTUM THENAFTER. OUR INITIATIVES INSTIGATE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND FACTS SUCH AS THOSE LISTED IN THE RECYCLING VISUALS ON THE PAGE. WE'D BE HAPPY TO UPDATE WITH FUTURE SUCCESS RATE. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1]" |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE ARE NOT WEB-SPECIFIC CONTENT. THE TRASH THAT YOU SEE IN IMAGES IS ACTUALLY SUFFICATING OUR BEACHES, OCEANS, AND ANIMALS THAT RESIDE WITHIN IT (IN REAL LIFE). THE ECOMB WIKI PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TRASH THAT IS OUT THERE AND DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO IS PICKING IT UP. WE ARE NOT A WEBCOMIC, PODCAST, BLOG, FORUM, MAGAZINE, OR OTHER MEDIA, WEB PORTALS, AND WEB HOSTS. WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE INVOKING SOCIAL/BEHAVIOR CHANGE AMONG RESIDENTS AND VISTORS TO MIAMI BEACH THROUGH LEADING BY EXAMPLE - NOT PERSUASION. THE TYPE OF CONTENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTE ON THE INTERNET CAN NOT BE CONSUMED TRADITIONALLY; THIS CONTENT IS IN THE FORM OF MOTIVATION. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2]" |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE ARE NOT USING WIKIPEDIA TO ADVERTISE. WE HAVE NOTHING TANGIBLE NOR SERVICE TO SELL. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DONATIONS. THERE ISN;T EVEN A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS LISTED ON THE PAGE. FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE DO YOU NOT SEE OUR INITIATIVE AS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW? FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WE WOULD RATHER WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR "COMPETITION" BECAUSE OF EXCELERATED FRUITION OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN REGARDS TO POLLUTION, LITTERING, RECYCLING, ETC... |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE ARE CONTEXTUALLY HOUSING NOTHING. WE ARE NOT PRESENTING OURSELVES AS A PORTAL OR LINKING TO ANY PORTAL THAT WE ADMINISTER |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on the following criteria." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE SOURCE THE COUNTY WEBSITE ON OUR EXTERNAL LINKS SECTION TO DOCUMENT ALL RECYCLING FACTS OF DADE COUNTY. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:" |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
GOVERNMENT SOURCES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH? |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
No original research |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
FACT: WE DO CLEAN UP THE BEACH ROUTINELY, FACT: THOSE ACTUALLY ARE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL INITITIVES DOCUMENTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE, FACT: THOSE ARE THE RECYCLING RATES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS, FACT: THAT IS THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
HOW CAN I BETTER REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT SOURCES FOR WHICH I DOCUMENTED THE FACTS LISTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE? |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.[1] Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
NOWHERE ON THE PAGE DOES IT ASK FOR PARTICIPATION NOT ATTEMPT ANY TYPE OF PERSUASION. WE LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND THIS PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT WE DO. NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING ANYONE HAS DONE IN THE HISTORY OF MAN. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WHICH PART OF THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL TO YOU CONSIDER TO BE C? |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
Original images |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
ALL IMAGES ON THE PAGE ARE EITHER GOVERNMENT SOURCED GRAPHICS OR OWNED BY ECOMB - YOUR INTERFACE IS NOT USERFRIENDLY TO EDIT THIS INFORMATION ASOCIATED WITH THE IMAGES - PLEASE SEND ME INFORMATION ON HOW TO DO SO. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WE ARE DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY, DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON WHO IS MOTIVATED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND DOCUMENTING KNOWLEDGE ON INITIVES WE ARE USING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. HOW DO YOU GRASP THE CONCEPT OF NUETRALITY IN CONTEXT WITH CIGERETTE BUTTS LEFT ON THE BEACH, WASTE DUMPS PILING OVER, DESCTROYED CORAL REEF? ARE YOU INFERRING THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE OUT THERE WHO IS FOR THESE OCCURANCES? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE I COULD UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF COI OR NUETRALITY. WIKIPEDIA STATES THAT IT IS INTERESTED IN GAINING MORE KNOWLDGE, AND WE ARE DELIVERING SPECIFIC TO MIAMI BEACH. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or, 2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;" |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
ZERO APPLICATION OF $$ |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
ZERO COMERCIAL LINKS. IS IT THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? DID YOU READ HIS ENTIRE BIO OR DID YOU JUST READ THE WORD BIO AND COME TO A CONCLUSION? |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. We earn the trust of our peers, and the public, by placing the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF VANITY PRESS. JUST ONE EXAMPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_congdon ALL ABOUT ABC, OWNERSHIP IN ROCKETBOOM; SHE USES THIS PAGE IN HER PORTFOLIO TO FURTHER HER AGENDA. ON A SIDE NOTE, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE JIMMY WALES TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF OUR BEACH CLEANUPS. LOOK, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU TAKING THE PAGE DOWN IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SELL CIGERRETTES TO KIDS ON WIKIPEDIA BUT WE ARE NOT; WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MOTIVATED TO CLEAN UP AFTER OTHER PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO CYCLE INTO TOWN AND DUMP TRASH IN OUR BACKYARD. WE DESERVE DOCUMENTATION ON A REPUTABLE SOURCE SUCH AS WIKIPEDIA AND WIKIPEDIA DESERVES QUALITY DOCUMENTATION OF THE FACT AS RECORDED. |
|||
Revision as of 03:50, 14 June 2007
A tag has been placed on ECOMB, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SalaSkan 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Commercial use of Image:Ecomblogo.gif
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Ecomblogo.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Ecomblogo.gif is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Ecomblogo.gif itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the licence tag on this logo to one which should make its usage in this article acceptable. --Tim4christ17 talk 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:11-b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:11-b.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright status of Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites ({{{http://www.ecomb.org}}} in this case) 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.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach with a link to where we can find that note;
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach with a link to the details.
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.
It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EarthPerson 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Tree-planting.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tree-planting.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Beach clean.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beach clean.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Commercial use of Image:Earthfest-2007.png
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Earthfest-2007.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Earthfest-2007.png is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Earthfest-2007.png itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Commercial use of Image:Earthfest-2007.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Earthfest-2007.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Earthfest-2007.JPG is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Earthfest-2007.JPG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Miscommunication?
I think we have a miscommunication with respect to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has particular guidelines about what is "notable". I understand what you're trying to achieve, but please read the guidelines for web page notability, original research, and especially conflict of interest. Tlesher 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Luiz with banner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Luiz with banner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Comparable recycling rates.JPG
--Tim4christ17 talk 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Recycling counties across the nation.JPG
--Tim4christ17 talk 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Where does the trash go.JPG
--Tim4christ17 talk 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
URL & Copyright
While works of the Federal Government are not copyrightable, works of other governments (including Miami-Dade County) are copyrightable. If you can provide evidence that your usage is allowable under Wikipedia:Fair Use or that it isn't copyrighted, then you can use the material. Otherwise the presumption has to be that it is under copyright. Sorry. --Tim4christ17 talk 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you could please sign your responses with ~~~~, it would be much appreciated, as it leaves a signature that links to your user page, facilitating communication. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 talk 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a miscommunication with respect to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has particular guidelines about what is "notable". I understand what you're trying to achieve, but please read the guidelines for web page notability, original research, and especially conflict of interest. Tlesher 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
"DOCUMENTING WHO IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUTURE OF THE EARTH/NESTED COMMUNITY THEREIN" IS KNOWLEDGE. DOCUMENTING WHERE WE DO IT IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE.
web page notability
"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."
WE ARE NOT A SERVICE NOR A WEBSITE; WE ARE A CAUSE. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS ARE CURRENT EVENTS. INITIATIVES SUCH AS OURS IMPACT HISTORICAL SIGNIFIGANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PERSONEL AND MOMENTUM THENAFTER. OUR INITIATIVES INSTIGATE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND FACTS SUCH AS THOSE LISTED IN THE RECYCLING VISUALS ON THE PAGE. WE'D BE HAPPY TO UPDATE WITH FUTURE SUCCESS RATE.
"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1]"
WE ARE NOT WEB-SPECIFIC CONTENT. THE TRASH THAT YOU SEE IN IMAGES IS ACTUALLY SUFFICATING OUR BEACHES, OCEANS, AND ANIMALS THAT RESIDE WITHIN IT (IN REAL LIFE). THE ECOMB WIKI PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TRASH THAT IS OUT THERE AND DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO IS PICKING IT UP. WE ARE NOT A WEBCOMIC, PODCAST, BLOG, FORUM, MAGAZINE, OR OTHER MEDIA, WEB PORTALS, AND WEB HOSTS. WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE INVOKING SOCIAL/BEHAVIOR CHANGE AMONG RESIDENTS AND VISTORS TO MIAMI BEACH THROUGH LEADING BY EXAMPLE - NOT PERSUASION. THE TYPE OF CONTENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTE ON THE INTERNET CAN NOT BE CONSUMED TRADITIONALLY; THIS CONTENT IS IN THE FORM OF MOTIVATION.
"Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2]"
WE ARE NOT USING WIKIPEDIA TO ADVERTISE. WE HAVE NOTHING TANGIBLE NOR SERVICE TO SELL. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DONATIONS. THERE ISN;T EVEN A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS LISTED ON THE PAGE. FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE DO YOU NOT SEE OUR INITIATIVE AS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW? FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WE WOULD RATHER WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR "COMPETITION" BECAUSE OF EXCELERATED FRUITION OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN REGARDS TO POLLUTION, LITTERING, RECYCLING, ETC...
"Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted."
WE ARE CONTEXTUALLY HOUSING NOTHING. WE ARE NOT PRESENTING OURSELVES AS A PORTAL OR LINKING TO ANY PORTAL THAT WE ADMINISTER
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on the following criteria."
WE SOURCE THE COUNTY WEBSITE ON OUR EXTERNAL LINKS SECTION TO DOCUMENT ALL RECYCLING FACTS OF DADE COUNTY.
"This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:"
GOVERNMENT SOURCES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?
No original research
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""
FACT: WE DO CLEAN UP THE BEACH ROUTINELY, FACT: THOSE ACTUALLY ARE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL INITITIVES DOCUMENTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE, FACT: THOSE ARE THE RECYCLING RATES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS, FACT: THAT IS THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
HOW CAN I BETTER REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT SOURCES FOR WHICH I DOCUMENTED THE FACTS LISTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE?
"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.[1] Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details."
NOWHERE ON THE PAGE DOES IT ASK FOR PARTICIPATION NOT ATTEMPT ANY TYPE OF PERSUASION. WE LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND THIS PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT WE DO. NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING ANYONE HAS DONE IN THE HISTORY OF MAN.
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C."
WHICH PART OF THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL TO YOU CONSIDER TO BE C?
Original images
ALL IMAGES ON THE PAGE ARE EITHER GOVERNMENT SOURCED GRAPHICS OR OWNED BY ECOMB - YOUR INTERFACE IS NOT USERFRIENDLY TO EDIT THIS INFORMATION ASOCIATED WITH THE IMAGES - PLEASE SEND ME INFORMATION ON HOW TO DO SO.
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest."
WE ARE DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY, DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON WHO IS MOTIVATED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND DOCUMENTING KNOWLEDGE ON INITIVES WE ARE USING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. HOW DO YOU GRASP THE CONCEPT OF NUETRALITY IN CONTEXT WITH CIGERETTE BUTTS LEFT ON THE BEACH, WASTE DUMPS PILING OVER, DESCTROYED CORAL REEF? ARE YOU INFERRING THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE OUT THERE WHO IS FOR THESE OCCURANCES? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE I COULD UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF COI OR NUETRALITY. WIKIPEDIA STATES THAT IT IS INTERESTED IN GAINING MORE KNOWLDGE, AND WE ARE DELIVERING SPECIFIC TO MIAMI BEACH.
"1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or, 2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;"
ZERO APPLICATION OF $$
"1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."
ZERO COMERCIAL LINKS. IS IT THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? DID YOU READ HIS ENTIRE BIO OR DID YOU JUST READ THE WORD BIO AND COME TO A CONCLUSION?
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. We earn the trust of our peers, and the public, by placing the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest."
WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF VANITY PRESS. JUST ONE EXAMPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_congdon ALL ABOUT ABC, OWNERSHIP IN ROCKETBOOM; SHE USES THIS PAGE IN HER PORTFOLIO TO FURTHER HER AGENDA. ON A SIDE NOTE, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE JIMMY WALES TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF OUR BEACH CLEANUPS. LOOK, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU TAKING THE PAGE DOWN IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SELL CIGERRETTES TO KIDS ON WIKIPEDIA BUT WE ARE NOT; WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MOTIVATED TO CLEAN UP AFTER OTHER PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO CYCLE INTO TOWN AND DUMP TRASH IN OUR BACKYARD. WE DESERVE DOCUMENTATION ON A REPUTABLE SOURCE SUCH AS WIKIPEDIA AND WIKIPEDIA DESERVES QUALITY DOCUMENTATION OF THE FACT AS RECORDED.