Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 9

Draft:Deep Ocean Minerals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently my article on Deep Ocean Minerals was rejected due to copyright issues. I am new to Wikipedia and had not realised that the copy I was given to work from had actually been published online, so my fault for not checking. Anyway the author of the article that was published online who provided me with the base copy has given permission for the contents of the article to be used. Note that my article is not a reproduction of that article it was shortened but in a couple of places the same sentences were used. Below is a copy of the permission from author Anthony Jacobs - which he has emailed to the administrator. Can you please review again and am hoping you undelete and approve the article. I really appreciate your help. I have sent various messages but although have been given notifications of responses I have not been able to find these responses so have been going around in cirles a bit. I do hope you can help me sort this out. Cheers Sharon: - here is the copyright approval:

I am responding to a request from the author regarding the deletion of the article on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Deep_Ocean_Minerals&action=edit&redlink=1

This article written by Wikipedia member “Thaiso” was written on my behalf and using material which I supplied and with my permission. It is not a direct copy of the article cited as your copyright below, but is a précis of this taking out only the bare facts to suit the Wikipedia format.

Could you please undelete the article (only administrators can do this).

I hereby affirm that I, Anthony Philip JACOBS, am the creator and hold the original Word Documents of the exclusive copyright of http://www.harnisch.com/uploads/tx_harnisch/wfe_0314minerals_and_trace_elements.pdf I have provided the Wikipedia Author, Thaiso, permission to use this material for a Wikipedia article on Deep Ocean Minerals. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Anthony Jacobs Authority : Original Author and Copyright holder 01st Feb, 2015 Leichlingen, Germany

Thanks

Anthony Jacobs t.jacobs@pharmalink-eu.com

Pharmalink Extracts Europe GmbH Solinger Str. 7 42799 Leichlingen, Germany

Direct: +49-2174-307 62 21 Mobile: +49-160-503-7470 www.pharmalink-eu.com www.lyprinol.de

Registration N° HRB 51097 Köln,

GF/MD: Anthony P. Jacobs, Andrea Jacobs

Thaiso (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, this will need to be emailed from an address ending in harnisch.com to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, or added to the harnisch.com website. We cannot verify who you are. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few problems here (1) It's not clear who owns the copyright if it is indeed the authors, or if it is the magazine who published. (2) If is the authors, then the article lists two authors, this appears to be one author claiming complete ownership (3) the email that you've apparently got there, isn't from the publishing magazine or the email address listed in the article as being that of the author (4) We can't validate the stuff you posted here as legitimate or not, emails and the like need to be as Stifle says to permissions-en@wikimedia.org --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And beyond all that, your first line suggests that the copyright was only detected because the article you copied had been published online. Had it not been published online, your copyright would have gone unnoticed. That's not okay. Do we need to check your other contributions for similar copyright problems? Close paraphrasing isn't okay. And publishing the work word-for-word would seem to breach our original research guidelines anyway. So I would suggest we don't allow this to be published, even with the copyright issues resolved. Go and start a draft for further consideration. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]