CaptainKramer

Welcome!

Hello, CaptainKramer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as National Atheist Party, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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! Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Atheist Party

A tag has been placed on National Atheist Party, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Atheist Party

A tag has been placed on National Atheist Party, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. Thank you. Calabe1992 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would assume good faith would be at least messaging someone before you destroy all their work, but I suppose I will see how you do things here. You may have differing conceptions of good faith. --CaptainKramer (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

About the deletion of the NAP article

Was going to reply to your comment, but saw that it was deleted as I was typing. Trying again: I didn't delete the article, but agree with them that it wasn't really notable yet, violated copyright in several places and was filled with a bunch of external links that were not appropriate. You can't just copy and paste from their websites and you need to use reliable sources in the article. Instead of spending the time to create it and then have it deleted again, you might want to consider using the Articles for Creation page to submit it for review and creation, that way you can get feedback from users to know where it is lacking as an encyclopedia article. Or you can use your own Wikipedia sandbox to create it in and then move it to article space when it is finished (probably after having someone else to take a look at it). You should be able to see a "My Sandbox" link at the top of the page. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is very similar to what I was going to write. (CaptainKramer, I mentioned on the article's talk page I was going to explain to you on your talk page, but I got stuck on the phone, and JoannaSerah got here before I did). Both the copyright issue and the notability issue need to be addressed. An assertion of notability is not enough. Reliable sources are required. Also, see WP:ORG. Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CaptainKramer. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sandbox version

Hi. Just because you are now building the article at User:CaptainKramer/sandbox, that does not mean you are immune to copyright laws, and you cannot just copy and paste material from the party's website. You need to rewrite it in your own words pretty quickly, or it will be deleted as a copyright infringement again. Please have a read through WP:Copyright for some guidance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(Saw the above message after I tagged it for speedy deletion...) CaptainKramer, we really cannot allow copyrighted material on Wikipedia, even temporarily. Copyright is a major issue, and we generally have to delete violations on sight. I have had to tag the sandbox version for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the copyrighted material - stop being vague. Let me at least delete old links other guy used- I have to start from scratch every time.

This is ridiculous--CaptainKramer (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The charter is an open public document - the link to the FAQ is the only content provided- and it is indicated directly where it is from

Please specify you aren't being helpful at all- just erasing content- some of which you might have issue with that I am going to fix.

The text on the party's web site is copyright - it even says so at the bottom of each page (not that it legally needs to - unless it is clearly freely licensed for copying, modification and distribution, Wikipedia cannot take copies of it). That means you cannot copy any of it into any Wikipedia page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, you asked for one specific example. You copied the contents of the party's site home page at http://www.usanap.org/ verbatim into your article. At the bottom of the page it says "© 2011 National Atheist Party. All rights reserved". That means you cannot copy it and use it elsewhere (and you still couldn't unless it explicitly said on that page that it was licensed for copying at least as freely as Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). Wikipedia cannot legally host a copy of it on any of its pages for even 10 seconds, never mind the 10 minutes you are complaining about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The charter is an open public document for reference filed with the IRS and open for view and use of everyone. You are wrong.--CaptainKramer (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT stating that the Mission statement or FAQ are my words it is saying it is the NAP and giving full credit. SO what is your issue with it? Public documents filed charters of non-profit organizations such as the NAP are open for full view and access of citizens by FOIA - this is not copyright infringement. Please point to something that is copyright infringement. You have cost me all my content - why should I have to start from scratch?--

Listent - that content is DIRECTLY from the public CHARTER of the organization- just because it is from front page.

WHy don't you understand the legalities- this is a publically registered NON-PROFIT 527- the charter is a public document that MUST be public- I DO NOT present the words as my own. It is the specific description- if you feel it should be expressed a different way - Why wouldn't you suggest a rewording - instead of DELETING everything. That seems not very professional or reasonable- it feels like supression and prejudice.

You cannot just copy an organization's content, give them credit, and then say it is not copyright violation because it is a public organization. The organization has claimed copyright on the material. Until they license it for Wikipedia to use, it is a copyright violation to reproduce it here. Please see WP:Copyright FAQ. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone who understands basic law I can appeal to - are all the people on Wikipedia like this. Just because this is an atheist organization, I don't feel we should be treated differntly.

Well, law is my job, and I am an atheist, so I think I am trying to treat you pretty fairly. But I have asked Moonriddengirl, an admin very involved in Wikipedia's copyright policy, to help you out. Singularity42 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I want my content back - I had adapted the language that SHOULD better suit you people and add many links and exanded information.

I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand non-profit law or principles of FOIA- it is hard for me to believe law is your job.--CaptainKramer (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to believe me, but reading WP:AGF may be a good thing to do. Anyway, there is no deadline. Have a little patience (i.e. 24 hours) so that Moonriddengirl can answer your questions any better than I can. Singularity42 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just looking on the main page - it might be helpful to actually look at the source document of charter NAP

http://www.usanap.org/documents/charter.html/

National Atheist Party Charter

“From Diversity and Reason, Unity”

Adopted March 2011

The National Atheist Party Charter is a PUBLIC document on file with the IRS .

The content of the charter is completely open to public consumption, and sharing.

--CaptainKramer (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I've had a quick look over some of the pages of the Charter, and it may be that the charter text specifically can be copied - we'll need to wait for Moonriddengirl. However, even if that's true, it still doesn't appear to mean the entire site can be copied - only the Charter pages. The text at http://www.usanap.org/ was copied verbatim into your version of the article, but I don't see that specific text in the Charter itself. I might have missed it, as I haven't checked every Charter page, but if it isn't specifically in the Charter in those exact words, I don't think any freedom to reproduce the Charter will be applicable to it. Anyway, as I say, I might have missed it - but I have to get off to bed now so I'll have to leave it there for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that there's some essential confusion between public records and public domain. While their content may be the former, it doesn't follow that it's the latter. We have a section on this in our guideline on Wikipedia:Public domain: here. The website in general can and evidently does reserve copyright.

While the webpage you link certainly does authorize "sharing" the specific charter, I'm afraid that it doesn't say anything about modification. Wikipedia requires a license that allows that content not only be reused (including commercially), but also modified.

If they are willing to license their content (Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has some recommended language), then we certainly can use it from a copyright standpoint. That doesn't mean, though, that all of their content would be appropriate here. :) WP:YFA talks a little bit about how Wikipedia articles are created; essentially, they are meant to be neutral summaries of what reliable sources have to say about notable subjects. If properly licensed, material from their website may be appropriate for inclusion in the article, but should not form the bulk, in keeping with guidelines on self-published sources.

If they are willing to verify that their charter may be modified as well as reused, even commercially, it would probably be very appropriate to place that on our sister project, Wikisource, and link to it in an article here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)