Shorsocial

Your submission at Articles for creation: SHOR (January 1)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Shorsocial, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

January 2014

The page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHOR has been deleted again, as it is still a copyright infringement of the same pages as it was the previous time it was deleted. The issue is perfectly clear-cut and unambiguous: the content you posted appears on pages bearing the notices "Copyright © www.shorlgbtq.com, 2013 All Rights Reserved" and "All Rights Reserved by UKAsiaOnline.com". I see that the copyright statement on your web site has recently been changed, and now says "No part of this story may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles or reviews with clear referencing to शोर !SHOR, the author (and the editor if applicable)". There is no way that that is an accurate description of what you did, making a whole draft article from the content, and in any case, that is not consistent with Wikipedia's licensing terms. Unless you are willing to license the content of your web site for reuse by anyone in the world, as-is or modified, at full length (not just "brief quotations"), it will not be compatible with Wikipedia's licensing terms. Editors who persist in copyright infringement after the issues have been brought to their attention may be blocked from editing. However, before you consider whether to put time and effort into releasing the content for free re-use by anyone in the world, I think it only fair to let you know that the content will never be acceptable as a Wikipedia article, no matter what its copyright status. This is because the material is unambiguously promotional, and Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, be it a person, an organisation, a business, a campaign, a point of view or opinion, or anything else. You should also be aware that if you have close personal connection to the organisation then Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage you from writing about it. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral, third party, point of view, not from the point of view of an insider. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)