User talk:Miloufromrotterdam

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Atelier Van Lieshout

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Atelier Van Lieshout, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.moooi.com/products/avl-table.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Atelier Van Lieshout

Hello Miloufromrotterdam,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Atelier Van Lieshout for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Dewritech (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to address copyright issues

Hi. The article has had to be deleted again, I'm afraid.

My guess at this point is that you may be the copyright holder. Many copyright holders believe that removing the material from publication elsewhere frees it to be placed here, but this is not actually the case. Copyright term lasts for the lifetime of the author + 70 years after death. If the content is pulled from the internet, that doesn't make it easier for us to use it, but actually harder.

If you are the copyright holder, the best way for you to alleviate this issue is to make sure the content is still visible on the internet (at this point, I can only view it through archive) and to place a license release there that says the following:

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 Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Please note that this the license under which text content on Wikipedia is released - it's important to recognize that wherever you publish it, it will be available for modification and reuse, even commercially, so long as reusers meet the terms of the license.

There are alternate ways to release this content, but this is really the simplest. If you can have that done and let me know, I will restore the article and provide proper evidence of license. If this is not a good way for you to release the material and you would prefer to do it by email, please let me know. I'll be happy to help you with that. If you are not the copyright holder, we will need permission from whoever is.

To get in touch with me, please use the "talk" link following my username. Alternatively, you can attract help from anyone by placing this (curly brackets and all) on your page and explaining what you need: {{helpme}}

I apologize for the complexity here, but as license is a legal issue we must ensure that we document it properly. We are not able to make assumptions about copyright ownership here.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. If you are not the owner of that particular website, but are the owner of the text, it may be somewhat more difficult for us to verify license. Unfortunately, since we have no means of verifying identity through account creation, we are required to verify externally and are not able to process a permission conveyed through Wikipedia.

If you are supplying biographical material about this man to a number of websites, then I assume that you are involved with him in some official capacity. If the website that the bot flogged is not yours, do you have an official website that confirms this involvement?

I do also have to advise you if you are connected to the subject that you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. As that page will explain, it is generally very challenging to create an article on a subject with which you are affiliated that meets Wikipedia's policies, and so it is strongly discouraged. Creating it through the Article Wizard as you have been doing is a good approach, but I believe the article you submitted would probably not have passed the review for reasons other than copyright - Wikipedia's articles are meant to be neutral summaries of what reliable sources have to say about notable subjects. Most of the content in them is supposed to be referenced to publications that are not connected to the subject...newspaper articles, magazine profiles, book references, unconnected reliable industry websites, things like that. Our purpose as a tertiary source is to summarize what these sources say about the subjects; our house policy forbids us to offer subjective analysis. The three core policies here to keep in mind verifiability, neutrality and "no original research". I see that in your last submitted version of the article, you did include several additional sources, but we need to be able to see what source is supporting such claims as "One of Atelier Van Lieshouts’ most well-known projects is AVL-Ville, a cultural free state in Rotterdam’s harbours, dating back to 2001. AVL-Ville only existed for one year, but drew a lot of attention and publicity, as it set out to provoke and inspire creativity." For this reason, you should really use inline citations that directly support content - who says it is well-known? Who says it drew a lot of attention? Where is its intention described? You should also avoid referring to the studio in the first person, as with "Our most recent works reflect on the possible end of civilisation as we know it." Wikipedia is not affiliated with AVL, and keeping that in mind is crucial. Our purpose is not to speak for our subjects, but to speak about them.

In any event, I will not be the one evaluating your submitted article; my purpose is to assist you if possible in clearing up the copyright confusion with the material you have submitted. But if you consider these elements and take them into account once the content is cleared, it may increase your chances of producing an article that will meet Wikipedia's goals and requirements.

Given more information about your web presence, I will be happy to discuss further how you might best proceed with verifying license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. There are ways around the fact that you are not listed on the official site and that you are not using your real name. One potential approach is for you to place the text you supply others about your company somewhere on your site with the necessary license release and give us a link to that. This is probably the best and easiest approach - the page does not need to be linked from your front page, but can appear anywhere in that domain. All that matters is that it include the text, a statement affirming original authorship of and copyright ownership of that text, and the licensing release I copied for you above. Alternatively, we can conduct the licensing release via email from that official domain to the volunteer response team of Wikipedia, but without the text published on your site there may be additional complications. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is always an option and generally a good one. :) The changes do need to be pretty thorough, though - without verified license (even if we know you originally wrote the text) we have to treat it like content written completely by somebody else. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some suggestions that could help. If you are going to write an article on a subject with which you are involved, I would recommend writing a pretty basic article - just enough to get it started reflecting enough reliable sources to ensure that it will not be deleted for failing to indicate notability. (WP:ORG can give some tips there.) Alternatively, you can rewrite it but also place the original text with licensing statement somewhere on the website. That way, even if it's just a little too close, there won't be any lingering copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted again

I'm sorry, but your new version of the article is not acceptable under our policies.

It still contains copied content. For instance, it begins with the sentence "Atelier Van Lieshout (AVL) is the internationally recognized studio and workshop of Dutch artist Joep van Lieshout." ([1]). The second sentence: [2]; YThe third sentence. The fourth sentence. And so on.

Beyond this, it doesn't cite a single source and is hopelessly promotional, in spite of my notes above explaining how to avoid conflict of interest - ". Our most recent works reflect on the possible end of civilisation as we know it."? Wikipedia is not your website; this studio's work is not our own.

Content here must conform to our policies.

At this point, I have protected the space against article creation so that no new article can be placed there until it conforms to our policies. If you wish to try again, I'd recommend you go through the article creation wizard and get it approved by an experienced editor there. Don't use previously published content and don't make promotional statements about the subject; provide reliable sources that are not connected to the subject. Otherwise, it is likely to fail.

I'm afraid that if you continue to use previously published content, this account is likely to be blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]