User talk:Docued

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jreferee (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 15 July 2007 (→‎AfD nomination of [[Blunden Harbour]]: Signed post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

License tagging for Image:John Marshall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall.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. 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tim Asch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tim Asch.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but 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.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. 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 irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Chick Bowen 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Jay Ruby and John Marshall (filmmaker)

You cannot just paste text from other sites into these articles. My understanding is that you may be able to do this if you hold the copyright, but generally speaking, article text drawing on this information should be summarized and properly cited. --Media anthro 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Birds (1965 film) and Robert Gardner

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. --Media anthro 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email: I am deleting the content you keep adding because it violates Wikipedia policy. Additionally, the content you keep adding is not written in a tone suitable for a Wikipedia article and informs the reader of nothing that they couldn't learn by clicking on the link to the DER page from which the text is taken.
I would respectfully suggest that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the policies and etiquette of editing here.--Media anthro 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested administrator attention to the above.--Media anthro 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second email

I'm not an admin here, so it's entirely possible that I'm interpreting Wikipedia policy incorrectly with regard to whether you can use the material. It could be that since DER holds the copyright, your say-so is enough to put in the article. If this is the case, someone more experienced in the community than I will tell me to back off.

HOWEVER, regardless of whether you have the legal right to insert this text, we generally don't just copy and paste text from other sites. For starters: what's the point? We already have links in each Wikipedia article to each of the DER pages from which the text came. Secondly, inserting the text as a whole presents issues in terms of grammar, style, pronoun usage and so on. One example of this, from your version of the Dead Birds article:

Dead Birds is a film about the Dani, a people dwelling in the Grand Valley of the Baliem high in the mountains of West Irian. When I shot the film in 1961, the Dani had an almost classic Neolithic culture.

The use of the first person is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and is jarring to the reader, who realizes that this content was simply slotted in. It's usually best to summarize or paraphrase such sources to produce original text for the Wikipedia article. Bibliographies, filmographies and sources, however, are great! You might want to read up on linking though, as there's a whole etiquette surrounding that.--Media anthro 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You may wish to use your talk page instead of email to converse. Just hit the "Edit this page" tab up top or this link and place your text below mine at the bottom of the page.--Media anthro 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have added the GNU copyright tag to the bottom of one our pages, and if it is sufficient, then we will add it to all others that will be used for Wikipedia pages. The link, just to show this, is: http://www.der.org/films/filmmakers/john-marshall.html

This should not only show that we are willing to comply with the Wikipedia copyright policy, but that we are also directly affiliated with DER, ending all speculation about the validity of our username and intentions. There should be no further issues regarding copyright once our GNU tag is posted on the appropriate DER pages, so I expect it will be much easier to create and edit the pages we have been working on since joining. Docued 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, the additional concern that the text you are posting is unsuitable for Wikipedia articles (as both User:Jkelly and I have noted) and will be removed or changed substantially.--Media anthro 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what you mean by "unsuitable" text...like mentioned before, our intention is not for the promotion of our company, it is to provide information regarding filmmakers and their films, and make that information clear and accessible... plain and simple. If that is misrepresented in the biography content we currently have posted, then I am willing to edit the content, however I am unsure what needs to be done. Can you give me a specific example of where the text may be "unsuitable", because I clearly have not viewed any of our text as so. Thank you.

  1. Although you may (or may not) have addressed the copyright issue, this is also a concern: The text already exists online. As I explained above, at best, it is redundant to create a Wikipedia article that cites verbatim a webpage that is one click away. At worst, it becomes a promotional vehicle for DER (who, by the way, I have nothing against, as you suggested). Wikipedia is not a mirror).
  2. The text you have pasted is often unencyclopedic in tone. For instance, some of it consists of long, first-person quotes about the subject in question.
If you review WP:NOT, you may get a better sense of what Wikipedia should include.--Media anthro 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edits to Jay Ruby. The unsuitability of copy-and-pasted text aside, this text was taken from Ruby's personal site on temple.edu and does not belong to you.
You're going to find your experience here much more rewarding if you take some time to learn to edit in harmony with the community.--Media anthro 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted content, username

There are two issues with your use of this site. The first is your insertion of text that has been copied from somewhere else. All contributions to Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. Contributions must also meet our content policies, and be encyclopedic in tone. Your contributions, which, by the way, should be not be signed, have unclear licensing status and strike a promotional tone.

Of further concern is your claim to be affiliated with, and especially to be acting as an agent of, an organisation, and that your editing is apparantly predicated upon that connection. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information, but, in brief, we are not enthusiastic about such a use of Wikipedia in general, and are deeply uncomfortable with what amounts to an anonymous user account identifying itself as asserting a professional relationship to the subjects of our articles. We neither want to, nor or able to, confirm such a relationship, and so request that usernames do not assert such a relationship. If you are genuinely interested in contributing to giving away a free, reusable encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Changing username for how to proceed. If, however, your purpose here is to promote affiliates of yours, you are likely to find your experience here frustrating. Jkelly 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent contributions

Hi, please note that I have again raised the issue of the cut-and-paste edits that you have recently made.

Another possible concern is that the subjects of the articles that you have created are non-notable, by Wikipeida standards, which means that they will be eventually deleted. I listed P.Kerim Friedman for deletion, and it was deleted eight minutes later.--Media anthro 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeatedly copy-pasting your website text into articles and for inserting in some cases tens of external links to your own site into various articles. Several of yoru articles seem to serve no apparent purpose other than to promote your company. This is what we call spamming, and we don't like it one little bit. Please see the external link guidelines, specifically links to avoid. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for promotion of the films and filmmakers that your company has a part in. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is not acceptable. — ERcheck (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as some useful context, Documentary Educational Resources is one of the foremost distributors of anthropological and ethnographic films. As such, it is a nonprofit academic and educational organization that this editor is so assiduously promoting, not a commercial enterprise (not that this makes it any more acceptable, but I am inclined to believe that Docued means well). The DER site itself is a great resource for anyone interested in these films, so my feeling is that one link per article would be useful (such as a link to a page on the Ax Fight in the article about The Ax Fight). I guess my point here is to make sure Docued understands that no one bears any grudge against DER as he/she suggested in earlier posts, but rather that contributions should be neutral and non-promotional. --Media anthro 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies in this case. As to the notabilty of DER, if there are appropriate secondary sources to validate the company's notability, it might be a more appropriate to create an article on the company rather than its filmmakers. — ERcheck (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jkelly suggested above that Docued consider a name change to avoid appearances of conflicts of interest. My feeling is that DER would easily pass the test of notability and would be a useful addition to the visual anthropology category. If any editor appropriately contributes material to such an article, I'd be happy to dig up those sources (10 seconds of Googling produces this, which might roughly satisfy the notability requirement; there are also, however, decades of articles from anthro journals referencing DER).--Media anthro 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changing the editor's name does not remove the conflict of interest, it only (I view) inappropriately hides it — coming incredibly close to sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny. Per WP:AUTO: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." An editor who does not have a vested interest in DER could appropriately contribute an article on the organization. — ERcheck (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, I suspect we're wasting our time here. DocuEd has percisely zero contributions in Talk space and only two comments in User talk, both on this page. I am far from confident that this user has any aim other than promoting their company. 62.73.137.190 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Alves Costa

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Catarina Alves Costa article, but 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.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. 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. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Ccscott 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!Nai, the Story of a !Kung Woman

I noticed that you blanked !Nai, the Story of a !Kung Woman. In the future I would suggest you make sure the title of an article you create is correct and also realize that simply blanking a page does not delete the page. If it happens again place {{db-blanked}} after you have blanked the page. though I would suggest you not do it at all. I have tagged it so. Also check out wikipedia's manual of style.--Tainter 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Aditi Nath Sarkar

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Aditi Nath Sarkar, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/filmmakers/aditi-nath-sarkar.html. As a copyright violation, Aditi Nath Sarkar appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Aditi Nath Sarkar has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Aditi Nath Sarkar. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Aditi Nath Sarkar, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Five Species

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Five Species, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/five-species.html. As a copyright violation, Five Species appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Five Species has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Five Species. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Five Species, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from pasting copyrighted material into Wikipedia

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your original contributions are welcome. . I notice you have been warned about this previously.

Also, it appears you may have a conflict of interest. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about subjects in which they have a direct interest.

Butseriouslyfolks 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a proper citation for the information from the Documentary Educational Resources site, as I am responsible for creating that particular page as well. We are the copyright holders for the biography on both sites, and they are just replicated on both pages. After I correctly include citations, I expect no more deletions of the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docued (talk • contribs)

In the future, please follow the permission confirmation procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed before introducing any copyrighted text to Wikipedia, or you may be blocked without any further warning. I have deleted Five Species anyway as an advertisement and because it did not assert any notability. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. If you create any other articles related to your company's products they may be deleted and you may be blocked without any further warning. Sandstein 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Aditi Nath Sarkar

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Aditi Nath Sarkar, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/filmmakers/aditi-nath-sarkar.html. As a copyright violation, Aditi Nath Sarkar appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Aditi Nath Sarkar has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Aditi Nath Sarkar. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Aditi Nath Sarkar, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Ákos Östör

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Ákos Östör, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://der.org/films/filmmakers/akos-ostor.html. As a copyright violation, Ákos Östör appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Ákos Östör has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Ákos Östör. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Ákos Östör, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Lina Fruzzetti

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Lina Fruzzetti, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/filmmakers/lina-fruzzetti.html. As a copyright violation, Lina Fruzzetti appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Lina Fruzzetti has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Lina Fruzzetti. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Lina Fruzzetti, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Singing Pictures

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Singing Pictures, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://der.org/films/singing-pictures.html. As a copyright violation, Singing Pictures appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Singing Pictures has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Singing Pictures. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Singing Pictures, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Magical Death

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Magical Death, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://der.org/films/magical-death.html. As a copyright violation, Magical Death appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Magical Death has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Magical Death. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Magical Death, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Duka's Dilemma

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Duka's Dilemma, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1355549522868934161. As a copyright violation, Duka's Dilemma appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Duka's Dilemma has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Duka's Dilemma. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Duka's Dilemma, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich

Hello. Concerning your contribution, African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1304416066693621864. As a copyright violation, African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at African Dance: Sand, Drum, and Shostakovich, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise

Hello. Concerning your contribution, The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.princeton.edu/~piirs/trading_morsels/schedules/films.pdf. As a copyright violation, The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at The Disappearing of Tuvalu: Trouble In Paradise, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Whose Is This Song?

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Whose Is This Song?, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cinemafoundation.com/free06/fff06.html. As a copyright violation, Whose Is This Song? appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Whose Is This Song? has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Whose Is This Song?. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Whose Is This Song?, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for. Docued

Copyright issue with Adela Peeva

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Adela Peeva, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/filmmakers/adela-peeva.html. As a copyright violation, Adela Peeva appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Adela Peeva has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Adela Peeva. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Adela Peeva, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for.

Copyright issue with Sin Embargo: Never the Less

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sin Embargo: Never the Less, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8502275565874555702. As a copyright violation, Sin Embargo: Never the Less appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sin Embargo: Never the Less has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Sin Embargo: Never the Less. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Sin Embargo: Never the Less, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for.

Copyright issue with Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6410289150752459913. As a copyright violation, Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Marathon Monks of Mt. Hiei, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for.

Copyright issue with Trading Women

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Trading Women, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.whyy.org/about/pressroom/TradingWomen.html. As a copyright violation, Trading Women appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Trading Women has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Trading Women. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Trading Women, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for.

Copyright issue with Altar of Fire

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Altar of Fire, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.der.org/films/altar-of-fire.html. As a copyright violation, Altar of Fire appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Altar of Fire has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Altar of Fire. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Altar of Fire, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm continuously confused by the policy regarding information on the pages I have created, and had deleted. I have properly cited the information to us here at Documentary Educational Resources, as we are the copyright owners of everything I have submitted thus far. I'm confused as to how the content I post can be classified as a copyright violation, if it is US who own the rights. Additionally, the intentions I have when posting this material is simply to make available information on some of the most innovative, successful documentary filmmakers and their films. That's it. This has been an issue for a few months now, and I'm asking now for you to give me a concrete example of what needs to be corrected, and in what manner. I appreciate your help, and hope you can give the answers I am looking for.

AfD nomination of Anne Zeller

An editor has nominated Anne Zeller, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Zeller and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KungSanResettlement.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KungSanResettlement.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:!Nai.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:!Nai.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:BalineseTranceSeance.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BalineseTranceSeance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Blunden Harbour

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blunden Harbour, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blunden Harbour. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docued&oldid=144711124"