Count your Garden by the Flowers

Welcome!

Hello, Count your Garden by the Flowers, 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 User:Count your Garden by the Flowers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Count your Garden by the Flowers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Count your Garden by the Flowers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey man, the page has been deleted without any clear reason, looks like the deleter didn't read anything or didn't understand the text. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Count your Garden by the Flowers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Count your Garden by the Flowers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The userpage has been deleted for the second time. The text does describe something that is 100 % Wikipedia related, it gives an example of the role references can play in false assumptions. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Inch, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Graham87 10:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, please do not break text–source integrity. Graham87 10:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Graham, thanks for taking time to write. A question for you: why deletion instead of adding a reliable source? Building together. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for adding the source. The reason people revert uncited additions is that Wikipedia content is extremely widely copied ... once something is added to the site, it can become much more difficult to find a reference for it that isn't derived from Wikipedia. Graham87 01:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for explaining. So true, when searching for sources one often finds texts outside WP that have been blindly copied from WP without mentioning WP as the source. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Count your Garden by the Flowers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Count your Garden by the Flowers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it doesn't fall under the (speedy) deletion criteria - this is a user-page, indeed without references - isn't that allowed on a user-page?. Maybe a person of flesh and blood has to read the text. It all has to do with Wikipedia, and nothing has to do with promotion. When someone can explain the specific reason, it will maybe understandable.Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Matilda of Tuscany into Boniface III, Margrave of Tuscany. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking time to leave a message here and for the explanation. Much appreciated! Do you mean by "original contributors" the sources on which WP editors have based their text? Because the texts of WP editors can't be seen as original work I guess, now that it's not allowed here to publish original research. Editors are only allowed to bring in opinions of experts and authorities. Furthermore in other language editions of Wikipedia many articles have been translated from the english ones without mentioning sources or anything else. According to the rules of the Wikipedia platform, there is only one rights or license holder and content owner: the Wikimedia Foundation based in the US. According to their General Terms of Use, the Foundation generally requires that all content you contribute is available under a free license or in the public domain. Hope you have time to clear some of the confusing. Tx Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Original contributors" means the people who wrote the article that's been copied. Wikipedia contributors own the copyright to their written submissions, and are required to release it under the licenses of this website. Some people choose to also release their work into the public domain. The Wikimedia Foundation owns the website where the encyclopedia is hosted. — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a common misunderstanding that wikipedia contributors "own the copyright to their written contributions".

1) Only "original work" is copyrightable / protectable (Berne Convention) and WP editors simply are not allowed to write original work.

2) WP contributors did agree to Wikimedia Foundation's General terms of Use: quote "Because we are dedicated to making content freely accessible to the public, we generally require that all content you contribute is available under a free license or in the public domain."

Notwithstanding the legal stuff, next time the article will be mentioned from which has been copeid. Keep up!Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm sorry your user page appears to have been deleted several times for no reason. In particular, the relevant policy states deletion is only appropriate for "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", which is clearly not the case here as you have been editing a number of different articles and attempting to improve the encyclopedia. I think you would have been justified in reviewing this action at a noticeboard, but since the current version appears to have been left, I think it's best to draw a line under this.

Now, having said that, I think your problem with some of the article edits is this. As Wikipedia is 20 years old, a number of articles have already been worked on and researched carefully by a number of editors, in order to counteract problems where hearsay and rumour are spread far and wide over the internet. For example, for many years people thought Alan MacMasters invented the toaster, because they read it on Wikpedia, but it turns out that's a complete fabrication. So we need to take care with ensuring that information is taken from the sources of the highest possible quality. In particular, articles that have been assessed as a good or featured article have undertaken peer review, extensively in the case of featured, and hence newcomers to the article are advised to read the relevant standards and guidelines to ensure their edits meet the same standard. I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333 for taking time to comment on the userpage deletions and to explain the background of your 2nd revert in the Carpenters article. Have read your POV, do understand were it comes from. Think however the 2nd revert not right/fair. To all filmtitles an extra citation has been added based on other sources than IMDb (to which renowned journalistic newspaper The Guardian has no problem to link to and of which the database is being enhanced with data from Amazon) so IMHO there's no reason to delete all films.Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sphilbrick for taking care of possible copyright violations - a whole-lotta-work! A few wordings were copied from an Unesco webpage, with the page as a reference. That's generally seen as fair use and not as a violation. The US copyright office writes to US laws: "It is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the quotation exception to copyright law. That said, I appreciate the link to the US copyright office page which I will save for future use (not surprisingly, this issue crops up on a regular basis)

I would like you to take a look at Wikipedia:Quotations. I'll start by noting that it is an essay, so doesn't carry with it the force of a policy or guideline, but it's my impression that editors working in this area generally find it acceptable. It's also worth perusing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations, which does have the force of a guideline.

It is somewhat interesting that the copyright office document explicitly references quotes, but doesn't seem to provide any guidance on how to identify that material has been quoted. Both our essay and guideline if specifically address this, noting that the material must be enclosed in quotes or by using block quotes. I trust it is obvious that one cannot cure the problem by simply dropping in quote marks around the phrase. At a minimum, the needs to be additional wording such as "according to UNESCO", but ideally something more substantial. If you choose to do this I won't object based upon copyright, but it is my opinion that the 64 words you quoted is pushing the limits of length. In addition, and this is my strong personal opinion, but I think consistent with our guidelines, we shouldn't simply use a quote when a full paraphrase would accomplish the same result. Obviously, it's a little more work to rewrite in one's own words, but I often see editors grabbing along excerpt and slapping quotes around it because it's easier. Fully get that there are times we want to see the exact words. No one is going to refer to John Kennedy's famous maxim "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" and decide the best thing to do is to rewrite it in your own words, but in many cases, and I think in the instance we are discussing, rewriting in your own words is the better option. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:Sphilbrick, in copyright and other legal issues I'd rather not rely on information offered by Wikipedia. Fully agree it's better to write the text yourself and copy-n-pasting should be banned ... this was a quick, lazy tiny edit to bring the stub a bit to life - everything is fine. Keep Up!Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the reasons I linked to a Wikipedia essay and a guideline. Wikipedia rules must be at least as strict as the law. If Wikipedia tried to suggest something was acceptable which is prohibited by law, the law trumps the Wikipedia rule. However, Wikipedia can and does take a more stringent view than the law. For example, the document you cited doesn't explicitly mention that attribution is required but Wikipedia does. If some editor work to challenge a removal on the basis that attribution is not required under law, that challenge would fail, because Wikipedia has the authority to take a tougher stance than the law. Our practice encourages the practice of writing article text in one's own words. This means an editorial judgment can be made to remove a direct quote even if the quote is permitted by law. Again, I appreciate you providing the useful link to the copyright office position, but my removal was based on the fact that your edit was a technical violation of our copyright rules (no in quotes). S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the General Terms of Use, the copyright rules on Wikipedia are not more strict than the law, see Overview, 4th paragraph, and 1b. Can you, User:Sphilbrick, be so kind to give a reliable source to underpin the statement "Wikipedia can and does take a more stringent view than the law."? Thanks Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)