If you need help with something, feel free to ask. 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.
If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:
If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.
Administrators, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions, however I do expect you to leave a message here explaining your reasons.
It looks like the question about IMDb was already clarified in that discussion. I think it's overkill to stir it up again. But the next time there is a questionable use of IMDb, pointing to the Film Resource page should do the trick. — CactusWriter (talk)14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another pseudo-source I see used often are some books called something like the "Webster Book of quotations on Politics" (but that's not it), which are issued on a variety of topics. They cite their source as Wikipedia, but they abbreviate it "WP" and many editors don't catch that. I think there's merit in a central list. It wouldn't fluctuate much - books aren't going to be re-issued to address the problem, though some websites might fix it. The only gray area I see are those sources which cite Wikipedia, where it's possible to exclude the WP-sourced content and still use the other parts. I suppose that a search of the RSN archives and of pages that link to WP:CIRCULAR[1] would find most instances that have been discussed. This problem is only going to get worse as Wikipedia continues to grow and as publishers grow more desperate for profit in a dwindling market. Will Bebacktalk23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The problem will only get worse and, over time, it becomes more difficult to parse the article histories to determine if/when the article was copied. And rather than search through the growing mountain of archives, it would be nice to be able to quickly direct an editor to a previous discussion -- especially in cases like ISHA and Gyan which will obviously pop up again. I think what would work is a page with a table format which lists the title, the publisher, a link to the RSN archived discussion, and a Notes column which discuss those 'gray areas" -- whether the entire source is copied or particular chapters/sections. I'll try to work something up over the weekend and then ask for your input. — CactusWriter (talk)00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at CycloneGU's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greetings from the Guild of Copy EditorsJuly 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.
GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.
It certainly is - which is why the article was previously deleted, as it did not assert such a thing. A version that covered the Grammy award part would be vastly less likely to be speedily deleted. - Vianello (Talk) 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the... Okay. You didn't misread anything. Somehow, I managed to miss that completely. Even on a second readthrough, no less. And it's only two sentences long. I wish I could even guess at what misfired in my brain to lead to that. You're completely right, and though the article is painfully scant, it's definitely not A7 material because of that. I'll restore it right now. Good catch, and sorry for my obstinacy over my own stupid mis-observation. My best guess would be that I started setting up the deletion after the CSD went up and before the addition, but I looked at it again after you brought it up. It's possible I looked at the original revision instead, but I don't think I did. Oh well, all's well that ends well! - Vianello (Talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE Invitation
There are currently 2,768 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.
Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
This page was deleted and I was wondering why and what needs to be done to have it be restored.
Also I forgot my user name and password. The user name was something like "RedFox 1-120th FA" or something. It should be in the discussion page of the page mentioned above. I can't remember what e-mail I used for it either. If you could take a peak at the deleted pages discussion section and remind me what the user name was that would be spectacular.
If you could I would appreciate your help with getting our page up to standards. I know we had a copyright violation but I was under the impression that we got it resolved. So unless there is a new problem I don't understand why it was deleted.
Hello, CDT Motacek. I have rechecked the history on the article and here is what happened. As you know, it was created on May 24 2010 by User talk:RedFox1-120 and flagged as a copyright violation of this globalsecurity.org webpage on May 26. There then followed a discussion on the talk page about the possibility of obtaining permission from Globalsecurity to use their website's text. On June 11, a Wikipedia administrator informed you that an e-mail from Globalsecurity.org must be sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation where is would be processed by the WP:OTRS office. In other words, a letter from Globalsecurity to you does not meet our legal requirements. By June 19, the OTRS office had not received any e-mail and the article was deleted. I left a message at User talk:Redfox1-120FA explaining the deletion and what could be done to rectify it. (You may wish to read that message now.)
The bottomline is this: The original article can still be restored from our history archive -- if an e-mail from Globalsecurity.org is sent to Wikipedia granting us permission to use the webpage. (A sample release letter and the procedure for submitting it can be found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.) Otherwise the article will need to be rewritten using only original language. I hope this helps clarify things for you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter (talk)17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. I thought I left this in the discussion section but I don't think that website holds a legitimate copyright to that text. As you can see at the bottom of the page at the globalsecurity.org webpage it was last modified in 2006. I have a unit history book here with the same text that was published in 2005. We actually didn't know this site had this information posted to their site until this whole debacle. We had one of our soldiers (RedFox1-120) create the page based on our unit’s history book. He typed it up word for word out of the book. The history that is in there is actually from a document that my commander had saved on his hard drive that has been continually modified throughout the years as the unit has been activated. Bottom line is that website has a default copyright in the footer on their site but for that data they do not legitimately hold that copyright. Now I don't think anyone at our unit cares that it's on there but we would like to be able to use the same information without hassle. When I e-mailed global security as you saw they didn't care that we posted the information on Wikipedia but I guess the issue here is that Wikipedia needs global security to e-mail them with some sort of statement saying we can use it. These guys were kind of tough to get a hold of and I'm not really sure what to do next. To me it seems ridiculous to tell these guys to e-mail you the statement because they didn't hold it legitimately in the first place. What do you think we should do to resolve it? ----RedFox1-120FA (Still can't remember the password) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cleanshooter (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but Wikipedia cannot resolve a copyright dispute between outside parties. If globalsecurity.org has infringed on your book's copyright, than you'll need to resolve that directly with them. That website's own copyright statement is quite clear. (Note that a modification date on their webpage may only indicate that there was a word change or spelling correction -- but the entire page could have been created earlier. I see in the history archive that the website's pages go back as early as February 2 2001. Unfortunately, the website has blocked access to determine the origin date of any specific page.) However... there may be one other possibility: is your unit's book an official publication of the United States Army? If so, than the text is public domain and can be reprinted by anyone. What is the actual publication information for the book (ISBN, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number, date, author, etc.)? — CactusWriter (talk)20:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got an e-mail from John Pike today he said he would send out an e-mail to Wikipedia with the form filled out so hopefully once your copyright team gets that e-mail the page can be restored. Are you the only one who can restore the data or can the copyright team do that? I hope to see it back in action soon! Cleanshooter (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, VW. Article has been restored. Cleanshooter, thanks for taking the time to go through our copyright procedures. Good luck with your further editing. — CactusWriter (talk)05:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh -- I only created the empty temp page. That's actually a copyright violation that was moved from the temp page without being properly rewritten. I'm going to G12 speedy delete it. (besides, a search finds no RS references other than the copied source page). — CactusWriter (talk)21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of article "Chepakovich valuation model"
Hello!
I do appreciate you vigilant approach to copyright protection. However, I am the author and holder of the copyright to the material about the Chepakovich valuation model published at http://www.istockresearch.com/valuation/ and in the Wikipedia article "Chepakovich valuation model". I've just granted permission (on "Talk:Chepakovich valuation model" and in an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org) to Wikimedia Foundation re-use of this material under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL.
I would greatly appreciate if the article is restored.
Best regards,
Alexander Chepakovich, CFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor123 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alexander. Thanks for following the procedure for granting permission to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Chepakovich valuation model article will be restored as soon as the e-mail is processed and cleared by our WP:OTRS personnel. There is often a heavy volume of e-mails, and it may take a few days before it is processed -- so please be patient. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter (talk)16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already referenced and expanded Gedvilas and Sakalauskas. So they are ok. As for Acukas, I can only tell he is a real person. His notability is somewhat marginal. I will need more time to investigate. Renata (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help Please!!!!!
Hi CactusWriter, I need some help on my userpage. I put an image on it to make my page look cool, but it was too big, and it is in the way of letting me edit my page. Could you possibly get rid of that image? Thanks, -- --Platyfishkeeperchat15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, of course. Anytime. I added one to yesterday's CP list -- than realized it would be crappy to add one and not fix a couple. Maybe we should start the "add one, fix one" courtesy program.
Add one, fix one! I like that idea. :D I'm actually being forced to take a break this weekend. I'm off to a conference, which I'd really rather not attend, but at least it will be a change of pace and some new restaurants. :) Can you help babysit WP:CP? I'm here to work on it today, but won't be able to touch it again until probably Monday. (Unless I get back much earlier than expected on Sunday. Keep your fingers crossed for me. :D) If you're not available, no worries; I am going to ask User:Mkativerata as well. And if neither of you are available, oh, well. It's only a couple of days. It won't be that big a backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CRJAC. I assume you are talking about the James A. Cramer article. Blanking all the text from an article won't remove the actual page -- pages can only be deleted by administrators. To indicate that you would like a page which you created deleted, you can add the template:db-author to the top of the page and an administrator will delete it for you. I have deleted the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk)14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Platyfishkeeper. I would suggest that you do not do any work on that particular image. I notice that permission to use it is unverified -- and it is currently marked for deletion at Wikipedia Commons. But for future reference -- images uploaded to Wikipedia (except those labeled as WP:Fair use such as those listed here) can all be legally altered. But before doing so, it is a good idea to inquire about it with the original uploader or on the talk page of the article where the image is displayed -- just as matter of proper etiquette. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk)16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cactuswriter, Thanks for looking over the page I created. I added a source, because in your message you asked for one. I am just a beginner at Wikipedia, so if I made a mistake please let me know. Thanks,----G24845 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G24845 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I started the page Arthur Silber, Jr and it was deleted before I had a chance to continue. Arthur is my client. I am his manager. He has written the book "Sammy Davis, Jr. Me and My Shadow" which is a biography about his 25+ year friendship with the legendary artist Sammy Davis Jr. I am sorry for not being proficient at creating a wiki page but I am a novice so it will take me a few days to complete. How can I create Arthur's page without fear of it being deleted again? Thank you for your help. Tammyagnt (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tammyagnt. There are a couple of issues here. First, the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest (COI) strongly discourages any editor from writing about themselves or their associates. As this person's agent, you have a definite COI which will make it difficult for you to write from a neutral point-of-view -- a foundation of encyclopedic articles. Second, if you are writing an article to promote your client's book -- than don't. Advertisements masquerading as articles will be deleted as WP:ARTSPAM. I suggest you first familiarize yourself with those policies. If you wish to continue, than the Wikipedia:Article wizard helps new users create an article -- as well as helps them determine whether or not their article will be meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make a new article titled Sciences of Qur'an and I faced the folowing problems:
1- I couldnt put any photos, I couldnt understand a thing from all these instructions u put there
and after it seems that I found it I couldnt place it on the right edge as the way it goes in Wikipedia.
2- I coundnt put my article in portals
3- I was working on my article, building it step by step. so yes I took from one reference but I intended to take from other sources, arabic ones but I didnt know where to put them coz I thought it wont help in an English article.
as for Ahmed von daffer, he is a German journalist and has an article on deutch wikipedia, all I did is I translate some about him into English.
any way I got a great help from wikipedia while I was working on my Ph.d. and when I finished it and as an acknowlgment I thought to contribute to wikipedia as it gives me a lot earlier. but it seems it's harder than I thought. thx anyway
Wafaashohdy (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wafaashohdy. I'm sorry that your first attempts to contribute to Wikipedia have been frustrating. I understand that there is definitely a large learning curve here. I'll try to clarify the reasons your articles were removed.
Sciences of Qur'an was deleted because it was created almost entirely by copy-pasting text from his source. This is a copyright violation -- it infringes on the legal rights of the author. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and any text determined to be a copyright violation is removed immediately. By the way, an article titled Qur'an and science already exists. Perhaps you can contribute to the editing and expansion of that article.
AHMAD VON DENFFER was deleted because it was a biography with no credible assertion of notability. Having a degree or having published a work is not an assertion of notability -- the person must have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That means, other people (in scholarly journals, newspapers, magazine, etc.) must be writing about that person. Please read WP:Notability (academics) or WP:Notability (people) for details on how people are notable enough for an individual biography in Wikipedia. If these reasons are clearly stated and referenced when creating a new article, than it will not qualify for speedy deletion.
I would suggest that you use WP:Article Wizard to build an article in user space before submitting it for inclusion. It will provide help in clarifying the guidelines for Wikipedia articles. You could also request help or advice from editors familiar with the topic, such as members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CactusWriter. Thanks for deleting my duplicate image, as I requested on the image page. This was my own photo, which I released to WikiCommons. I have a general question about images, this being my first WP article (Gordion Furniture and Wooden Artifacts). I have used several of my own photographs, to which I hold the copyright, which I cannot release to WC, because they are photos of objects in the Ankara Museum and associated with an excavation run under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. I could not see any way to tag them other than with the tags "Non-free 2D art" and "Non-free with permission". This throws up the cautionary notices on the image pages, which asks for detailed information regarding compliance with WP's fair-use guidelines. As I am using my own photos, copyrighted by me, and am not using the images according to the fair-use doctrine, I am wondering if there is a different/better way I should be tagging them. Meanwhile, I have provided the requested detailed fair-use rationale as indicated in the tag notices. My copyrighted photos are of course available to be used by others according to the fair-use provisions of the US copyright law and WP guidelines. I cannot as yet make these available as free images, but I may be able to do so in the future, after the final reports on the project have been published (one of which is in press right now). Can you please advise? If you have time, you might look at the image page for one of my images to let me know what you think. I support WP and am trying to comply but am unsure of the correct way to do it. I appreciate your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, E.S.V. Leigh. Thanks for making the attempt to comply with Wikipedia's policies on non-free content. It is very much appreciated. Since we are a free encyclopedia, the use of non-free images is strictly limited -- and must be based on whether they are necessary to illustrate something which cannot be conveyed in the text. There must be a compelling need for them. In briefly looking at the article, I would say that while many of the pictures are nice -- there is no strict necessity for using so much non-free content . The best way for you to contribute the photos, such as the three from this page, is using the procedure outlined here. Is that a possibility for you?
I must admit that the use of non-free images is not my expertise -- in certain instances the rules can be vague. I'm going to request advice from an administrator who is more knowledgeable about image use so we can get a definitive answer. — CactusWriter (talk)15:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't upset anyone by jumping in univited, but why are self-created images any different than those found elsewhere so long as they comply with all of the non-free content criteria? Is this caveat hiding in a talk page archive somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CactusWriter and other friends. First of all, CactusWriter, thanks for checking the Penn website link. Unfortunately, those are not free images; they are used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania, and, in the case of my photographs, from me. Second, thanks for considering my images nice! I appreciate this and hasten to add that they are more than subsidiary illustrations of the text and are required in order to communicate the contents of this article. The article contains art historical and archaeological content and cannot be understood without the images. In this instance, the subject is unlike some other art historical ones, say the good one on Jacques-Louis David, for which public-domain images are available. Finally, regarding self-created images, these are not photos I took of friends, buildings, landscapes, etc. The one photo I include that does depict something of this sort I have uploaded to WikipediaCommons. The others are project photos which cannot yet be released into the public domain. Is there some kind of category (and tag) that covers this kind of image? I would think that Wikipedia, while wanting to encourage authors to provide free images, would also not wish to prohibit the use of those that are provided to the site for re-use under fair-use provisions. I think that this would help upgrade the content of the articles. Has this been considered? I have written a number of articles in print encyclopedias, which do typically limit the number of images used, but only because of cost restrictions. I support the Wikipedia endeavor and would like to see it take its place among commercial print/web encyclopedias. Thanks. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E. S. V. Leigh, I think this is one of those situations in which it is a nice try, but, unfortunately, it does not fit our legal requirements. In my opinion, most of the photos do not meet our criteria for contextual significance -- a reasonable reader will understand the subject with well-written descriptions, making the non-free content unnecessary. Secondly, some of the images are obviously repetitive. For example, [[2]] and [[3]]. Finally, it has been pointed out that a creator cannot claim fair-use. They must release their work under a free license, but you have stated that you are unable to do so. In any case, rather than remove the images now, I'll request a review of them to see if there are other opinions. — CactusWriter (talk)19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CactusWriter. I have been pouring over the regulations to try to figure this out. As you probably realize, the information on content, tags, etc. is difficult to understand and sometimes conflicting. I understand the benefits of free use; I also understand the problem of repetition. I was not able to see your references "2" and "3" which you believe are repetitive; from my perspective nothing here is repetitive, but I can of course eliminate some of the images. The problem here relates to writing about art (and archaeology) or anything visual. Yes, a reasonable reader will understand something about the subject with well-written descriptions. However, he/she will have no idea what the author is really talking about without seeing the image. In this case, the photographs are in fact quite different from the reconstruction drawings, which is part of the educational point. I see that few of my colleagues in my areas of expertise have contributed to Wikipedia articles, either as authors or editors; this is manifest from the quality and content of the articles. If you can make the process easier for the experts, you will have a bigger following and a better encyclopedia. As for the images in my article, I am doing this purely as a service; if Wikipedia does not want to use the images, this has no effect on me--only on your readers. I think this is something you and your colleagues might want to think about. I do appreciate your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter. I believe I get the picture (as it were) and have been wondering about how to correct this problem. I don't see any discussion on my images yet, but I think I will take matters into my own hands, with your help, I hope, and see if I can rectify the situation. I am planning to reduce the number of images (specifically in terms of the drawings, which I cannot release), release a few photos through WikiCommons, and put up the U of P historical photos among the mix. Let me try this out, and you can see what you think. You probably realize that I am not talking about credentials here; many of those with stellar credentials are fully capable of writing nonsense. Meanwhile, are you a fan of the Gordion furniture yet? Thanks and regards, E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I have completed the overhaul and hope you will find it acceptable. I would like to use the historic images, which I believe are not prohibited. I would also like to use the painting of the funeral ceremony. Otherwise, I have deleted all offensive images or replaced them with versions that I have released to Wikipedia Commons. Can you help me remove the warnings? With thanks, E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CactusWriter, I did not find any discussion on my images but have added my own comments to the discussion page for non-free use (included here FYI below). I hope that I have now satisfied the requirements to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else I have misunderstood or missed. My comment is as follows.
I am the uploader and have made several changes since CactusWriter's comments about the images listed above. I have deleted several images from the article, and I have made versions of most of the others available through Wikimedia Commons; these include all the images listed above except the last five. The remaining images are four historical photos of the 1957 and 1959 excavations of Tumulus MM and W at Gordion, as well as the painting of the reconstruction of the funeral ceremony of the king buried in Tumulus MM, prior to the burial. The former are included by permission of the Gordion Project, University of Pennsylvania Museum, for which I have included the original photo designations and invoice number of the U of P Museum permission. The latter, the painted reconstruction, was published in Archaeology magazine, and I have changed the source to reflect this; I did not realize that this is what was meant by "source." I hope that now I have satisfied all Wikipedia requirements regarding these remaining images. These images in particular are important to illustrate the article and do, in my opinion, satisfy all ten criteria; I should add that all five are used with permission of the copyright holders. Thanks, CactusWriter, for your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes -- and commenting at the review. At this point, we can wait to see if there are any further comments. I'll be certain to contact you should there be a need to make any changes. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk)20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, is there any particular reason you restored this? There's an actual rewrite in the appropriate location at Talk:Sergio Rendine/Temp which I'm trying to figure out just what to do with it at the moment, but the one I tagged is unneeded and just sitting there in mainspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Hi Cactus Writer, You posted a copyright infringement notice on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mansion_on_O_Street
I am trying to rectify the situation as quickly as possible and I wanted to let you know I edited this page yesterday to reflect the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Mansion_on_O_Street
This copy is permitted to use see: http://www.omansion.com/museum/about/history/ - BOTTOM OF THE PAGE it states: re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0
In addition, I do have permission to use the photos on this page directly from the photographers but I think I have to deal with that separately. If you could let me know if there is anything else I need to do to have the stamp removed I would appreciate it. Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion - O Street Museum Foundation
Hi Cactus Writer, I got notification that O Street Museum Foundation was tagged for speedy deletion but it was deleted before I could put a hang on tag on it to discuss. The copy on the deleted page is permitted for usage please see: http://www.omansion.com/museum/about/history/ - BOTTOM OF THE PAGE it states: re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0. I would like to have this page restored if possible. If you could let me know if there is anything else I need to do to have the page restored I would appreciate it. Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Sortiesimon! I'm not sure how I had missed that earlier -- of course, I was following the terms of use page for the entire website. But you are correct, the text is now licensed as CC-BY-SA, so I have restored the O Street Museum Foundation and removed the template from The Mansion on O Street. I do want to point out to you that although the text is cleared for use, it may still require rewriting to meet our criteria for neutral point-of-view, independent sourcing and non-promotional language. Additionally, I'm not certain if there is enough significant coverage for the two separate topics -- so they may work better merged into a single article. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cactus Writer, Thank you very much for your speedy reply. As you can tell I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning. I worked a little bit on the first paragraph taking out words that might seem like opinion and adding a few sources to support it. I know you must be busy, but would it be o.k. if I ping you for guidance from time to time? I sure would appreciate it, thank you again! Sincerely, Sortiesimon (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You speak "computer", don't you?
Hi. :) There's a listing at CP with which I'd appreciate the help of somebody fluent (or semi-fluent) in computer: Linear Data Set. It's been marked as a copyvio of [4], and the tagger helpfully refers to section 1.6.5 (Linear Data Set) and its subsection (Data-In-Virtual) as the point of origin. I have difficulty assessing articles written in computerese, because I am unfamiliar with the jargon, so I can't always tell when a paraphrase is acceptable or not. This does not seem to be direct pasting, although some text is verbatim. Any chance you can take on the ticket? It's at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 October 13. If you can handle that one, I'd be grateful. I'll take care of everything else from that day, including SCV. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All else is handled from the 13th. If you can take care of that one, you can close out the day. Wouldn't that be fun? :D (By the way, if you don't want to handle that one, let me know; I often ask User:Dcoetzee to help with computer or math related questions, but that gets embarrrassing as he never archives and his talk page is littered with my requests. I look very needy. :/) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, thanks. Why didn't you just address your note "Dear Geek"? :) I'm not fluent in computer -- but can parse it enough to stumble my way through that listing. (The jargon was fairly specific to the source and not general "computerese".) It's unfortunately a delete. — CactusWriter (talk)16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Well, you're the one who lists "computer programmer" amongst his experiences. :D Me, sadly, I'm computer jargon deficient. :/ I'm afraid I have a bit of a mental block when it comes to that stuff. Thanks so much! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter! I am researching and working on updating both of my articles and I saw I have a new note from Jan 1922 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC). So I went to talk with them about how I am working on what you have recommended and it seems this user has been permanently blocked? I'm not sure what to do but I would really appreciate the opportunity to act on the guidance you have given me before anyone deletes the page. Can you help me? Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd nomination of your article was created improperly by a vandal sock account. The account has been blocked and the AFD has been deleted. I went ahead and removed the notice from your talk page. Good luck. — CactusWriter (talk)20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CU has confirmed them all to the same account. All were blocked including two new unused ones created yesterday and today. I expect the article pages will have a slight respite now -- at least for little while. — CactusWriter (talk)04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TumMMstandAdetailWP7.jpg%7Cthis){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TumMMstandAdwgWP8.jpg%7Cthis){kind=link}