User talk:Spaghettimeister

Welcome!

Hello, Spaghettimeister, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dps04 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/Corporate/A477257.pdf. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia: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 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 removed 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. Dps04 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of https://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/Corporate/A477257.pdf might be public domain, but I didn't see any indication that that was the case. However, I didn't look very hard because even if it is public domain, it is almost never appropriate to simply copy and paste material from other sources. There are times it is appropriate to use a short excerpt exactly as is, but the material should be enclosed in quote marks or in a quote box. There are some rare cases where we use large excerpts of public domain material but we prominently mark them as such and this one doesn't qualify.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is it common practice for the Wikipedia mafia to completely remove articles rather than 'fix them' when they were not written by members of the inner circle? Wikipedia is supposed to be open and collaborative. If you don't like something, change it, don't delete the whole article from existence. Leaving the article would provide an opportunity for others to update it without having to start from scratch. I myself intended to evolve the article over the coming weeks. Not all the content in the article was copied from one of the sources, but even if it was why rewrite something that is unbiased and accurate when it can be reused with credit given to the author. Any information is better than no information, especially when Wikipedia is one of the first sources the public consult when researching a topic. From what you have said, it sounds as if the article was deleted because you didn't like it, didn't want to change it, and an alleged copyright infringement claim just provided reason enough to remove it from public record and make it all go away. This is just wrong. I wonder how this would have played out if this was a US government agency... very differently I imagine.Spag Bol (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any information is better than no information. With all due respect, I disagree. Per WP:COPYOTHERS, copying copyrighted materials not only hurts Wikipedia's reputation, but may also create legal liabilities, so they should be avoided at all costs. If you claim the material copied was not protected by copyright, you have the burden to verify that the material is compatibly licensed or in the public domain. Even if the plagiarized material is indeed in the public domain, as you previously asserted (supported by little evidence), this does not translate into a blanket approval for copying the material verbatim, especially when the source in contention sounds entirely promotional in tone. Please see WP:G11 and WP:G12 for further details. Also, I don't see how any other editors could help "fix" an article substantially based on plagiarized material. It is better to start from scratch than trying to improve on an article which was blatantly plagiarized. Furthermore, deleting the article also does not "remove it from public record". Most of the "deleted" material is still readily available at the subject's webpage. Finally, please assume good faith at all times and refrain from hastily interpreting another users' comment on your article as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Thanks. --Dps04 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NOPSEMA Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NOPSEMA Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]