:Damn I was sure I had replied already! I'm so sorry! At that time I would have said to keep an eye open but SPI was unlikely to achieve much (besides of course keeping a record of these suspicions). Of course asking an other CU to weight in might be very valuable (I might have missed something) -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#0099FF;">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
:Damn I was sure I had replied already! I'm so sorry! At that time I would have said to keep an eye open but SPI was unlikely to achieve much (besides of course keeping a record of these suspicions). Of course asking an other CU to weight in might be very valuable (I might have missed something) -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#0099FF;">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm a commons admin too. If you need something done there, explain what, who and why on my commons talk page.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm a commons admin too. If you need something done there, explain what, who and why on my commons talk page.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
{{inconclusive}} based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.
{{probable}} based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree.
Should you have a free moment at some point, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allstarecho in regards to the copyvio concern as well as the past but recent copyvio issue we went through. I've been quite careful in regards to copyvio and close paraphrasing but someone else seems to think otherwise. Considering our history, I feel it best to let you speak about it and my efforts in helping right my wrongs. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll take a look. If it's concerning potential recent copyright issues, I will have to spend a little time checking recent contribs so I can assert confidently if I see no current problems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's concerning one recent issue but if you feel the need to check more than the one in question, I have no objections. I'm confident that I have been a good boy. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A long moment it turned into. For the record (and I said as much there), I don't think there was any intentional copyright shenanigans, though I do think that both the photograph and long quote are legitimate copyright concerns (explained why there). If you need feedback on copyright matters, you know (I trust) that you're welcome to come by here. If I don't know, I usually know where to ask. :) I'm up for surgery in two weeks, but I have come to rely on those people who watch my page to give good feedback. Even if I'm not here, I hope somebody will be. :) Alternatively, there's always WT:COPYCLEAN, which does have some monitoring. And, of course, I'm sure you already know about WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time you spent there. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I replied to your comments there. Again, thanks for the neutral weighing in. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't actually gone; somebody redirected it because it didn't have enough content to stand alone. It can be expanded. You can write a plot summary in your words, for instance, if you've seen the episode. In case you don't know, one simple way to edit a page that redirects is to try to navigate to Helen's Back as usual. It will dump you in the other article, and you will see just under the header "(Redirected from Helen's Back)". Click on the words "Helen's Back" in that note, and it will take you to the redirect page in a way that allows you to edit it as normal. If you look at the history, you can just click on the last version by me and add on to it ([2]). --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shattari: Is this alternative to copyvio any use?
Hi, I noticed the copyvio tag on Shattari (not my work). Have created a possible alternative at Talk:Shattari/Temp and made a note of that on the Shattari talk page. It's only a stub but it is referenced. Is this of any help to you? Thanks, Esowteric+Talk15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an employee with Exinda's marketing department and actually wrote the Exinda webcopy from which the Exinda Wikipedia listing was taken. How can we resolve this copyright issue and get our listing reposted?
I'm trying to find the reference to the page Icewine martini. You deleted it and I left a message in the talk page but now I can't find it. Can you point me the way to find the original deleted article? I left proof that the contentious parts of the article was used by permission. Thanks, Phil. Philcheevers (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Only administrators can view deleted articles. But if by proof, you mean the note "This article is free for republishing" at [3], the contributor who tagged the article explained at that talk page that this is not a compatible license with Wikipedia's. We need a license that explicitly permits reproduction (including commercial) and modification. All content you place directly on Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-alike License 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License. In order for us to accept text that is previously published elsewhere, it must at the least be explicitly licensed under a license compatible with CC-BY-SA, such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA itself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article at articlealley is a reprint from a book I wrote. I have explicitely made the content in question at the bottom of my page at www.vinocanada.com available for wikipedia, proving that I am the author and that it is releaseable to wikipedia. Philcheevers (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in donating that text. Your current language, however, needs modification, as it says, "Portions of The Essential Icewine Companion appear with permission in Wikipedia's "Icewine Martini" entry." As I indicated above, we need an explicit license statement. At Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia recommends "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." Obviously, you would want to alter that to indicate what specific text you have released. If you don't want to put that statement on your website (for example if you fear that others might misunderstand it and make more liberal use of your work than you intend), you can e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation with your license statement as set out at Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) The one here is evidently from a source that is PD by age. I don't know if this one is pd, though. I don't see any indication that it is, but I am not at all familiar with the sources for the subject. The material is also published here.
Wayback is down, so I'm having trouble evaluating, but there may be some cause for concern with [4], which dates to 1998 and which has text duplicated in the Buffalo Soldiers section. Are they both taken from a PD source? From source:
Life at Leavenworth was not pleasant for the 10th. The Fort's commander, who was admittedly opposed to African- Americans serving in the regular army, made life as difficult as he could on the new troopers. Grierson sought to have his regiment transferred, and subsequently received orders moving the regiment to Fort Riley, Kansas later that summer.
Our article says:
Life at Leavenworth was not pleasant for the 10th Calvary. The fort's commander, who was openly opposed to African-Americans serving in the Regular Army, made life for the new troops difficult. Benjamin Grierson sought to have his regiment transferred, and subsequently received orders moving the regiment to Fort Riley, Kansas, later that summer.
This section closely paraphrases what is evidently a public domain source, here:
Captain Carpenter's troop was the first of these commands to arrive upon the scene. It found Forsyth's command out of rations, living on horse-flesh without salt or pepper. All its officers had been killed or wounded.
Our article says:
Carpenter’s troop was the first of these three commands to arrive upon the scene. They found Forsyth’s command out of rations and forced to survive on horse and mule flesh. Not one animal survived. All of Forsyth's officers had been killed or wounded.
I am way out of time for Wikipedia tonight. If you can, please verify that these close paraphrases are from public domain material. Otherwise, once wayback is up and running, I'll check to verify point of origin. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got no talkpage notice when I started work this morning! I've got a bunch of stuff here!
Sure. I have no objections. Has there been any progress in subdividing the CSB listings? I'm barely keeping a handle on stuff as I'm getting ready for my surgery. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl :). This article has had some sterling work done recently, mainly by one editor, expanding and referencing the history section. Another editor has asked me to have a look at it with regard to copyright/paraphrase issues. There is really only one readily available source of early historical information about the town, R.L. Greenall's "A History of Kettering" and this has been used as the major source in this expansion. I think that the majority of what has been added is fine, but wanted someone more experienced in copyright issues to look at what I consider to be two of the most "borderline" examples. I hope this doesn't seem trivial or nit-picking:).
First example:
From the article:
The ‘Wic-’ prefix of the nearby village of Weekley is viewed by some place-name scholars as indicating the presence of foederati, Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought in to bolster Britain’s defences against barbarian attack.
From the source:
"[...] in the place-name Weekly, the 'Wic-' prefix being seen by place-name scholars an an indication of feodorati, Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought in to boost the defences of the Empire, [...]"
Second example:
From the article:
The town traces its origins to an early Romano British settlement which lies under the northern part of the modern town. Occupied until the 4th century AD there is evidence of considerable iron-smelting taking place at this site; indeed it is believed that iron-smelting continued in the adjacent Rockingham Forest area until at least the time of Domesday Book and beyond. Along with the Forest of Dean and the Weald of Kent/Sussex this area of Northamptonshire was one of the three great areas of iron-working in Roman Britain. The settlement was unwalled and extends into the Weekley and Geddington parishes.
From the source:
"The major ancient monument in the parish in the large unwalled Roman settlement which lies under the northern part of the town and extends into Weekly and Geddington parishes. Evidence of considerable iron-smelting has been found and the settlement was occupied until the fourth century AD. [...] This part of Northamptonshire was one of the three great centres of iron-working in Roman Britain, the others being the Weald of Kent and Sussex and the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. The making of iron seems to have been carried on in Rockingham Forest down to the time of the Domesday Book and beyond, and was probably discontinued [...]"
(Both extracts from R.L.Greenall, A History of Kettering, Phillimore, 2003)
As I said, these are examples of what seems to me closest to a paraphrase of the original source. Many thanks in advance for having a look :.) --TheSmuel (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's some very clear close paraphrasing there, I agree. I doubt that it's substantial enough that any court would find it a copyright violation, but it isn't in keeping with WP:NFC. I'll come over and revise a bit to separate further, since they are small sections. Thanks for investigating it and detailing your issues so thoroughly. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to separate a bit more, including incorporating direct quotations. If you think further revision to my words is necessary, by all means feel free. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you for responding to my request. I don't have a copy of Greenall so I was unable to do any checking myself. I can however usually recognise potential problems like these.--Kudpung (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personel Pages
Why do you delete personal pages without discussing. I warn you not to do that Hemant Vohra 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant 17 (talk • contribs)
Yikes, thanks for adding the template there. I completely forgot to follow up on that until it just popped up on my watchlist. The originator User:Hemant 17 has been rather persistent in adding questionable articles. His user page has a list of articles, most of which have been deleted a number of times by various admins. A more forceful hand might be necessary here. — CactusWriter |needles11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) I'm actually conversing with him at the moment as I'm cleaning up quite a few copyvio articles he put into his userspace. Hopefully, he'll understand the issue now so that further action won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing me Hemant Vohra 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant 17 (talk • contribs)
No problems.. I also want to point out that Indian copyright laws mention nothing about Government data.... The census is released into te public domain.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the pure information from the census, then such facts are not covered by US copyright, which is what governs Wikipedia. Census data should be usable. Indian government creative text is generally protected. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Encyclopedia - copyright or copyfraud?
The article Moses has text copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia. It's been removed twice as copyvio, the last time by me, just restored here: [5]? I'm confused, at Talk:Moses this is described as copyfraud by the JE, the linked webpage for the JE says "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com." - is it possible the 1906 text is still in copyright, or the JE is making false claims, or? Yours in confusion, Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I've run into these guys before. The 1906 version is public domain. They can only assert copyright over any new material they may have added, not over the original text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mrg.
A question about the wayback machine: This page shows the earliest version for this website as November 4 2006. But as I understand it, that only is a point in time that the wayback machine saved that site -- however, the website could certainly have existed in that form earlier(In fact, I notice a 2005-2006 copyright symbol on the page bottom). Or does it mean that that particular website didn't exist previous to the November 6 date? — CactusWriter |needles13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I usually take wayback as a ballpark figure, since it's the first sweep where the page was picked up. There's also occasionally issues where a page existed under another name (or a subpage) and was moved. Wayback does not archive on a regular frequency, and there may be several weeks between internet sweeps. Usually I use it as step one of investigation. If the date is definitive, I need look no further. (If the article preexists the earliest archive by several years, for instance; or if the archive predates us.) If I'm still not sure, I check other clues, especially looking for significant development in an article to bring it towards or away from the archived site. If in doubt, I usually rewrite. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- that's what I thought. Damn it, I was looking for an easy way out. I suspected a reverse copyvio but the WP article was built in such largish chunks that it could possibly have been developed from the website over time. However... I just noticed a mistake on the website - one sentence includes the parenthetical text (see the article Walking like an Egyptian) - just like the Wikipedia article does. But a Walking like an Egyptian article doesn't exist on that hip hop website and Wikipedia had one back then. Whoo hoo! — CactusWriter |needles13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another pesky copyright problem
Lately, I've been having some dealings with an (apparently young) user who seems unable or unwilling to understand WP policies. Could you take a look at Talk:History of Pittsboro, Indiana and let me know whether my comments there are on the right track, and if so, what the next step in dealing with the copyvio should be? Deor (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on with the comments there. I cannot quite tell from the contributor's note if he is professing that he has actually copied text verbatim—it sounds like it; but it would be very nice to be able to get our hands on a copy of his source. :/ I'll come over and pitch in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I think it's pretty obvious from the tone of the text ("We had come a long way in fifty years … ," "So, in the 25 years from 1984 to 2009, what has happened in Pittsboro?"), as well as its reflecting a compositional ability much greater than what Sedna10387 has shown elsewhere, that Sedna just typed the text of the pamphlet, or whatever it is, verbatim. Deor (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For being a substantial contributor of music album pages and starting up new album articles. Furthermore, not only have you created many album articles, you created them with exceptional quality. Wikipedia should consider itself lucky for having an editor such as yourself. Keep up the great work. Calaka (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you very much. :D I got better at it as I went. I was trying to remember my first; I think it may have been this one. I didn't even know how to tell if it charted at that time; I copied the information from her discography page. I asked at the albums wikiproject, but nobody even answered me. :) Now I get to go be the book article newbie.
Thanks also for helping keep that project organized. I got distracted for a while with copyright cleanup, but didn't want to see it languish. Your notes were a good impetus to continue. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe no worries! It is the least I could give you. I wish you all the best with the book article creation process. Oh and no worries about the project organization. I truly should help Wikipedia in more real ways like actually making articles and so on, but due to real life commitments not letting me spend an excessive amount of time doing extensive research on an article, the most I can do is make announcements and suggestions on talk pages and write little notes after doing quick Google searches to help people do the work. I hope that with my meager efforts of helping Wikipedia, the article creation process goes a tiny bit faster. Anyway, congratulations once again and happy editing! :)Calaka (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite as bad as I first thought. :D The IP put a <blockquote> notation in for some reason before a section, and I thought that the entire section was a quote (with subquotes). Still, quoting multiple paragraphs is not doable. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, tough one. Here's what I found: both users edit from the Netherlands. Neftchi edits from a big city and a small town (he spends a week here, a week there, the pattern doesn't seem much predictable), and Retlaw only edits from the big city. I find it peculiar that they never edit at the same time, so my guts that might be someone living at 3 different places (2 in the city), and using the Internet connection there. However, I can't rule out they being 2 different people. I can't find any evidence disproving one of these 2 scenarios. -- Luktalk09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I was sure I had replied already! I'm so sorry! At that time I would have said to keep an eye open but SPI was unlikely to achieve much (besides of course keeping a record of these suspicions). Of course asking an other CU to weight in might be very valuable (I might have missed something) -- Luktalk11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inconclusive based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.
Likely based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetization
Hello. Can you point me to the proper place in the manual of style where alphabetization is discussed? I am looking specifically for the policy relating to band names. My basic question is, are The Decembrists listed under "t" for The or "d" for Decembrists? I have noticed inconsistencies where this is concerned. My personal feeling is that if a band puts "the" at the beginning of their name, it is part of the name. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) If the band's article is under "The Decembrists", that in itself would seem to support you. Wikipedia:Name requires that the article be dropped if it is not part of the title. Traditional alphabetical schemes drop the articles (so as to avoid having a billion under T, I should imagine), but I do not know if there's a specific manual of style for that on Wikipedia. Can't find one, anyway. If I were you, I would ask at WP:FL first, since that seems like the kind of thing they'd know about. If not, I'd try the help desk, since there are at least good odds that somebody there will have seen it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sita manu (talk·contribs) is uploading a number of images and I'm not clear about their copyright, particularly after seeing this edit [6] - is there a board where questions like the editor's or mine can be asked about images? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I still don't know my way around copyright pages enough, and don't really have time to help out more, sorry. But our free use policy seems a bit unclear to say the least, esp. with regard to logos. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all counts. I once had an image I had uploaded nominated for deletion as failing NFC. It was deleted. I myself nominated several images I had uploaded with the same rationale for review subsequently at WP:NFCR. They were kept. It makes no sense to me. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright violation of Moses. H. Cone Memorial Hospital entry
I have attributed to Wikipedia in the past regarding articles on the hospitals in North and South Carolina, but the article on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital seems like that it was copied and pasted from the hospital's actual website [7] which I have added to this section. I have compared the two pages and have been undetermined to reach a consensus on whether or not this is indeed a copyright violation. If you can determine whether it is in fact a violation and allow for a rewrite of the article, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Geomapboy2 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I hovered over the original article, I thought it said that it was on the Indian version of WP, though I could be mistaken. --mhking (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think WP talk:Upload could be semi-protected, considering it's being spammed all the time or will it defeat its purpose since non-autoconfirmed users may ask about the inability to upload? -- Mentifisto12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's a pity people don't read the edit notices at such pages. :/ Could save a lot of trouble. I think we probably should not semi-protect it because it seems like a likely spot for new users to ask for help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletetd fsc2 page
Hi,
I just noticed by chance (I didn't create the page and had no idea that it existed) that there is/was a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsc2, which seem to have contained a description of a program for controlling spectrometers I wrote - there's a link in the delete message that points to my web page for the program. It seems to have been deleted by you for some kind of copyright infringement. Could you be so kind to tell me why this has been done? The program in under a free license (GPL) as is its documentation. So I am now worried if there's something where I may have inadvertently violated someone else's copyright (even though I wrote everything from scratch).
If you want to contact me directly my email address is jt@toerring.de.
Hi. So far as I know, you have violated no copyright. :) Wikipedia, however, underwent a licensing transition completed this summer that requires that all text imported here after November of 2008 must be licensed compatibly with WP:CC-BY-SA. Co-licensing under WP:GFDL is preferred, but only necessary if the copyright holder contributes it directly. The contributor was notified, here, but did not follow through with attempting to obtain co-licensing. If you want to permit this text to be used on Wikipedia, the quickest and easiest way to do so is to make a note at your website indicate that the content is available for reuse and modification under CC-By-SA 3.0. If you don't want to make such a note, you can still release it through e-mail. Full directions for both types of releases are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you decide to release at your website, please let me know, and once I have verified that the release meets our requirements, I will restore the article. If you do it through e-mail, whichever agent processes your letter should do it. Thanks, and please let me know if any of this is unclear. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you very much for your kind (and clear;-) explanation! I did add a line at the bottom of the page, putting it "officially" under the GNU Free Documentation License. Does that satisfy the requirements?
Thanks for your quick response! :) It will if you also license it under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. Wikipedia used to only accept material licensed under GFDL, but after our licensing change, we can no longer accept GFDL licensed material unless it is also under a license compatible with CC-By-SA, such as CC-By or (of course) CC-By-SA itself. GFDL and CC-BY-SA are very similar, but they are not compatible. (Curiously, we can accept material licensed only under CC-BY-SA. Go figure. More information about this is available at WMF:Terms_of_Use.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for unnecessarily adding to your workload, but I'm rather bad at that kind of stuff:-( I now also added the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 to the copyright notice. I hope that covers all the bases.
Duly restored with proper attribution on the article face. Please don't worry about my workload; I'm very familiar with this stuff and happy to help. :) Thank you for donating the text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to fix Richard Perry's page. it looks very good. Sorry I haven't been in touch until now to thank you but I've been under the weather lately. I sent Richard the message you sent to me and told him to contact you directly should he wish to make any changes or additions in the future. Take care.
