:Alternatively to temporarily restoring, I ''can'' e-mail a copy to you. We don't usually e-mail copyright problem articles, but these are not ordinary circumstances. That would spare you having to complete it by Christmas, which is when it will come due for deletion again if I restore it now. Just let me know which you would prefer. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
:Alternatively to temporarily restoring, I ''can'' e-mail a copy to you. We don't usually e-mail copyright problem articles, but these are not ordinary circumstances. That would spare you having to complete it by Christmas, which is when it will come due for deletion again if I restore it now. Just let me know which you would prefer. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks - if you could e-mail me the page that would be great. You can e-mail it to bobitautogroup@gmail.com. Thank you!!!! [[Special:Contributions/12.23.116.114|12.23.116.114]] ([[User talk:12.23.116.114|talk]]) 22:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)AFLA_Wiki
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.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. 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; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) 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, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. 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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 11:14, 29 August 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
This is almost a personal attack and quite frankly becoming tiresome. He put the same message on my talk page. FYI Mr Garside, as I have stated to Moonriddengirl before... I began by editing the Jesper Olsen page and going through the history was what led me to the Garside page. So your editing of the Olsen page is what got me interested in the Garside page to begin with. I also have other contributions contrary to the single purpose account of this individual. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interest alone is not proof of identity. It is reasonable that a running enthusiast would have an interest in contributing to the Garside article as well as to those of other runners. As a public person, Garside will draw attention of others, who may even find the arguments of his detractors persuasive. This is one of the challenges, I'm afraid, of being a public person. People with a conflict are encouraged to acknowledge it; CanadianLinuxUser has denied having one. Ultimately, however, what really matters is his behavior related to the article. As long as he is willing to work within consensus to achieve a neutral article, there are no issues with his contributing to it. At this point, he has been very willing to do that.
CanadianLinuxUser, I realize that this is frustrating, but I would ask you please to be patient and overlook the accusations. This individual has encountered strong POV pushing in the past; perhaps this is why he tends to be suspicious of it now. We need to be sensitive to his legitimate concerns even as we remain true to Wikipedia's mission. Honoring WP:BLP requires a careful balancing act. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again... thanks for "reigning" me in :-D I do not want to start a fight on your talk page... or mine LOL. My personal opinion is "he doth protest too much..." and he is full of tribble droppings. That being said, do not hesitate to keep me keep me in the straight and narrow. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IF - and you probably won't - look back at the HISTORY of the editing of Robert Garside and IF - and you probably won't - look at my contributions, you will see that all I have ever done is defend the name "Robert Garside" and I have been more than fair, despite unjust personal attacks. I have not contravened policy, just argued my case well. Since you have forgotten, Robert Garside has appeared in a derrogatory light on the following pages over several years: Guinness World Records, Royal Holloway University, Franz Lidz..... "Robert Garside" has also appeared on numerous other pages, therefore there is due cause to be diligent. There have been personal attacks against Robert Garside and as a consequence of defending or undoing unfair edits, we have been blocked. That is ridiculous. Fact is that we will continue to monitor the page and correct errors, unbalanced edits or bias edits. Of course, you allow the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page to be based on references purely from his own web blog... but if I edit something into the "Robert Garside" page it is removed, even though I reference it to a news story. Double standards exist and as previously stated, the discearning of Wikipedia's readers already know it. 87.194.42.37 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz.[reply]
You have also attempted on multiple occasions to be the "detractor" as you put it on the Jesper Olsen article. Like I said that is what brought me to the Garside page. I have consulted the history of both articles before editing as well as consulted the references, which led me to my personal opinion mentioned previously. I will not take up Moonriddengirl's time with any more pointless arguing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FROM DROMEAZ:
1. You write, "...which led me to my personal opinion". Wikipedia is not about personal opinions and I am not a detractor of anyone. You got that the wrong way around.
2. If you search for "Jesper Olsen", you will find a page about a footballer. "Jesper Olsen (runner)" is different. How did you find that page in the first place when it is obscure? And given that there is no mention of me on there, how did you find the "Robert Garside" page after that?
3. It's funny, is it not, that all of your edits on "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page are POSITIVE, even though it is his web blogs that forms the references AND all of your edits about "Robert Garside" are NEGATIVE. Strange.
4. You may hide behind being a Wikipedia administrator, which you no doubt promoted yourself into being, but your true identity does not fool me. THIS IS A SMOKE SCREEN. I know who you are and it is a shame that Moonriddengirl does not. Your style of editing, the history of your editing gives you away. 88.97.15.109 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC) DROMEAZ[reply]
(SIGHS) Do I really have to?? Very well then....
1. Hence why I never put my personal opinion about you in the article.
2. To find Jesper Olsen I went to the upper right hand corner of the Wikipedia and started typing Jesper Olsen.... It filled automatically Jesper Olsen (runner) for me.... like Google... If you would have read what I have repeated three times now... I read the editing history (Contributions) of Olsen's page and found YOUR edits of Olsen's page... following YOUR contributions led me to Garside's page.
3. I did not put positive or negative edits on Olsen's page... I reported what I read on the World Run Website...
4. I am not a Wikipedia Administrator... I am a Wikipedia editor. I live in Montreal, Quebec, Canada... I am not Phil Essam, nor am I David Blaikie. My first name is Jacques. I am a runner. I have a few marathons under my belt and hope one day to complete an Ultra or two.
FWIW, you don't have to answer these questions. Just so long as your behavior at the article and its talk page are within policies and guidelines, there should be no issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I don't "have" to... but he can't attack my edits (or so you told him) so he feels the need to attack me... once again... apologies for filling up your talk page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to my talk page; you can explain yourself to him if you like. I just don't want you to feel compelled. These are unusual circumstances. If he were a regular contributor, there would likely be followup with his failures to WP:AGF, but he's already indefinitely blocked. Blocking his IP addresses would risk collateral damage, since they change, and might also hinder him in his legitimate endeavors to keep the content neutral. I would really recommend just focusing on substantial issues he may raise and not concerning yourself with his conclusions as to your identity. Again, past encounters may have led him to a greater degree of suspicion.
I see what you mean about IP addresses. 4 IPs in 2 days... Mr Garside changes IP addresses more often than I change my socks. :-D PS: Thanks for your patience, instead of a Barnstar, I do hear by grant you a stress free week without migraines. :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dromeaz, please do not continue posting on this user's talk page. I understand your concerns as well, but ultimately it doesn't really matter who he is so long as the article remains within our policies. Focusing on content will be much more productive. If you begin to be seen as harassing him, there may be additional steps taken that result in your only being able to voice your concerns via e-mail, and I think that would be unfair to you. Contributors may not always agree with you that specific content constitutes a problem, but I think it's important that you continue to have a voice. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl: I actually think you think you are trying to be neutral, but believe me, I have had this for the last 12 years. I am pretty much an expert on these people and you cannot take them at face value.
CanadianLinuxUser writes "I read the editing history (Contributions) of Olsen's page and found YOUR edits of Olsen's page... following YOUR contributions led me to Garside's page." Moonriddengirl....I have made NO edits under "Dromeaz" on the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page, so what he writes is not true. Don't you get it? And yes, it does matter *who* he is. If he is a known detractor, then his intentions are not pure, so it does matter... and.... "discussion" pages are for exactly that......discussing. Stop falsely accusing me of not following policy and of vandalism. This is false. Finally, for as long as you are using the name "Robert Garside" so liberally I will be there, so I truly hope you will be fair and balanced and not go on and on about a dispute that was only in the minds of a few jealous rivals! And, Moonriddengirl, lose this CanadianLinuxUser guy. I don't buy his identity unless he can *really* prove who he is. 81.179.252.175 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz[reply]
With reference to my last, please stop making false allegations. TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate is an old user account. It is not a "sockpuppet". This account has not been active since 2009. 81.179.252.175 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz[reply]
I'm afraid that under policy, it is considered "sock puppeting" to create a new account in order to edit when one account is blocked. See item #3, third down, at WP:ILLEGIT. User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate was indefinitely blocked in 2009. However, the tag has it backwards; per policy, User:Dromeaz would be the "sock puppet" account.
I've temporarily protected the talk page of CanadianLinuxUser. I've asked you to stop posting on this user's talk page, and I need to caution you again that if you begin to be seen as harassing him, there may be additional steps taken that result in your only being able to voice your concerns via e-mail. If you wish to be able to voice your concerns about the Robert Garside article on Wikipedia, you really must restrict your focus. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can warn all you like for as long as you invoke the name "Robert Garside" and make baseless accusations, I will be there to defend my name. I have already complained to Wikipedia about this and I intend to pursue it. I am sick and tired of dealing with an infrastructure of anonymous editors who block anyone who disagrees with them. Discussion pages are for discussions. You cannot present your case that is why you choose to threaten me instead, even though I have done nothing more than disagree with you. In 2009, an old user account was unfairly blocked because I used it to defend the name "Robert Garside" from personal attacks. Nothing more. Check the history and you will see that. That account does not exist and has not existed for over a year. I do not use that account. Understand? I use the account "Dromeaz" and if you are able to specifically point out where I have done wrong, giving and example, then okay. But you cannot. I am not doing sockpuppetry, you need to be using more than one account at one time to be doing that. I am not. I simply stopped using the old account in 2009 in favour of a new account in 2010. That is all. I therefore refute your allegations. 109.153.106.188 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz[reply]
Moonriddengirl, the old account "TheLongestRoadoIndiaGate" was closed FIRST in 2009 because I didn't need to use that account any longer as I was liaising directly with Wikipedia to resolve an aggressive personal attack against me on Wikipedia. That got resolved so I closed the account. Later, a year later in 2010, the attack started again so I started "Dromeaz". Why do you assume I was trying to avoid "sanctions". Stop assuming that. You are wrong. If things get out of hand I already know what steps I can take to remedy the situation of PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST ME. 109.153.106.188 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC) DROMEAZ[reply]
Dromeaz, the account was not "closed", but blocked. There are clear records of this. Your last edit with it was here, at 14:15, 22 July 2009. It was indefinitely blocked two minutes later at 14:17, 22 July 2009 ([1]). I am not assuming anything; I have reviewed the records. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. This indefinite block constitutes "sanctions" as defined by Wikipedia, and your creation of another account to edit constitutes sock puppetry and block evasion, again as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a private website, and they are quite entitled to define their own terms. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, I am surprised that you are turning a blind eye to what one of my enemies/detractors is doing. He has took the time and trouble to become an established user and has camoflaged his real identity with the username "CanadianLinuxUser". Can you not see that he is CHIPPING AWAY at the "Robert Garside" page, reducing it in volume, trimming it down, stripping it away. At the same time he is bolstering the "Jesper Olsen" page. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His recent edit to the article was done under the argument that some of the content was redundant; he was right, it was. Later today, I'll look at it to make sure that the changes have not again brought criticism to undue prominence. However, with respect to the edit you placed on my talk page which was removed, you know that we do not lock articles into preferred versions. This article will evolve, just as all articles on Wikipedia do. This particular article has been given an additional level of protection that only autoconfirmed users may edit it and edits by anyone who has not reached "reviewer" status must be reviewed and approved by somebody who has. The changes that "CanadianLinuxUser" made were reviewed and approved by another contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, I have already told you that CanadianLinuxUser is a detractor of Robert Garside. By taking away the ratifications section he suggests that there still is a dispute. There is no dispute. Guinness ratified the world record. He took that whole section away to de-value the record as a validated record.... what's worse is that he is a known sdetractor of ours and he is bolstering the Jesper Olsen (runner) page. It is clear that he is trying to control; both the articles. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"CanadianLinuxUser" has edited the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page 21 times this month, all positive and that add volume to the page. "CanadianLinuxUser" has conflict of interest (COI). Add onto that, that he has edited the "Robert Garside" page 18 times this month, all negative and that subtract volume from the page. That is a fact. Add onto that, that he is known to us as a detractor of "Robert Garside" and tried to prevent "Dromeaz" from editing, so he can get his own way and try to re-write history. As previously stated, we will NEVER stop in protecting the name "Robert Garside" against those who persist in trying to compromise it. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have told me that; you also reverted User:UnicornTapestry as a "vandal" and indicated that he must have become an editor in 2007 because of the record (cf. [2]). User:UnicornTapestryclearly has no conflict. I have no doubt that you feel strongly that this individual has an axe to grind against Garside, but you have demonstrated a history of being mistaken in this, there, and in your earlier behavior when you accused administrators and long-established editors of Wikipedia of creating multiple accounts to defame Garside: [3]. You have legitimate reason to watch for misuse of this article, but you seem inclined to view any critical edits as necessarily coming from a conspiracy. Even though it is not appropriate for me to engage you in conversation under the circumstances (you are evading sanctions even now), I am still trying to talk you into voicing your concerns about the article in a manner appropriate. If you think the content is unbalanced, you need to explain why and what needs changing. Going on tirades against the contributors is not helpful; unless you are able to prove your assertions (and you certainly weren't with User:UnicornTapestry), it amounts of harassment...not of Garside, but of the users about whom you are complaining. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Yes, there are attribution issues. I've G6ed the unattributed fork, since it had already been turned into a redirect. I've explained the situation to the contributor and have also asked him to attribute another split he recently made as well as any others that may remain unattributed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I closed a requested move Talk:30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)#Requested move (well within the bound of a non-admin closure) as move. There had in the past been two article, one at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) and one at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) which were merged. As these have very overlapping edit histories the redirect at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) can't be deleted to do the move so I did it by copy and paste, leaving appropriate comment in the edit history and clearly stating what had been done on both talk pages. As we need to keep both pages this seemed like the easiest, and best, way forward. Another non-admin has now reversed it saying they don't think cut and past is appropriate (see the requested move for more detailed reasoning). Could you please advise? Dpmuk (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From an attribution standpoint, a fully attributed cut and paste move would have been fine, if the histories of the articles should not be merged. It does run the risk of being undone and further complicating attribution, though, which is why in these cases the one being merged is usually archived in talk space. Anthony seems to have mopped up, though he archived it in namespace--maybe because it had a talk page? We don't archive in namespace to avoid "random page" finding archives, but since this is a redirect at an unlikely pagename, I suspect there's little risk of problem. :)
In terms of CCI bots, I don't sweat the stuff that is slow in appearing; I just rejoice over the stuff that shows up. If you manage to come up with something, great, but please don't feel like I'm staring at my watch impatiently. :D I have so much on my "to-do" list that I completely understand that it can take a while to get to something! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can understand the concern about it being undone I also think the current situation is far from perfect. We now have in the edit history for 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) "merge from 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)" which has got to be complicating attribution a lot as it appears to have been merged from itself. I realise appropriate comments on talk pages (which I note still need to be added so will do shortly) go some way to solving this but aren't we unnecessary complicating matters for anyone looking for attribution history. At least with a copy and paste move the histories stay in the same place meaning, in my opinion, the edit histories are much easier to follow. It seems to me that the basic idea that "copy+paste = bad" is being taken too far and actually sometimes hindering rather than helping attribution.
As for the bot I commented because I've been working on other stuff and so it could seem like I'd forgotten it - however things like closing / commenting on RMs and checking speedy tags is quick so I can do it when I've got a few spare minutes whereas I'd probably want to find at least an hour to work on a bot. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to move a page A to B, and there is already unwanted text at B, then merely deleting B and moving A to B would result in the visible edits (old A, new B) sitting over a deleted parallel history that was at B before. That is liable to accidents if the new B must later be temporarily deleted. For that reason I moved the old B to another pagename. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at (possibly because, being a non-admin, I can't see the delete / undelete interface) but I'm suggesting copy+paste is the best way which involves no deletions. I also think your comment about accidents is a red herring - ultimately doing it this was has made it harder for everyone (including readers) to correctly determine attribution. Ultimately things should be done for the benefit of users not to make things easier for admins. Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a comment in edit summary noting the location of the history for attribution should eliminate any confusion that might exist. Alternatively (or additionally), we could do what I used to do with copyright problems before revdeletion: create a talk subpage with the attribution history and either transclude it at the talk or link to it. That way, viewers can easily see the list. Those who need more detail can still dig it up at the new location. (Making things easier for admins should not be the primary goal of any procedure, to be sure, but making it less likely that an administrator will unintentionally create a huge mess is a good idea, although I believe that Anthony may be thinking that in this case you were suggesting deleting the article...he may not have realized that there is attribution history that needs to be maintained, eliminating that as an option.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If page B has an edit history, and there is a deleted parallel history in B also, then, if B must be temporarily deleted (for history-split, or history-merge, or to delete some edits), then deleting the visible edits of B would interleave the two parallel histories in one mixed list, causing confusion. See Wikipedia:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When edits are deleted, they do not cease to exist: they are marked as "deleted", and admins (which includes me) can see the deleted edits as a second list of edits for that page name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony. It's quite true that we can see them, but I'm not sure the relevance here. :) In case you're referring to my note above, deleted edits are of no use for copyright attribution, of course, as they are not visible to our readers. That's what I'm talking about above. The content in these articles has already been intermingled, evidently, in the past, so we need to maintain attribution for both. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl - I touched based with you a while back about the Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA) page you deleted. I was able to get back into my account, and in my research on deleted pages, I saw that some admins can temporarly reinstate a page. I just want to see what was on the page so I can work to create a new page within Wiki's guidelines, but I can't recall all of what was included on the page.
Can you please help!? If it could be reinstated for just one week I can get everything I need, I do not have any issues with the page being deleted, I understand the concerns. I just wanted to see one last time what was included.
Hi. :) I can temporarily restore the page if you're planning to write a new version. I do have to suggest, though, that you should probably request a name change first, as names that reflect companies are forbidden. Yours is not so obvious that you would be blocked on sight, but there's a pretty good chance that a new article on AFLA created by your username could be a problem. Please see Wikipedia:Changing username. I also have to request that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations before you begin rewriting. It is not forbidden that you write an article about the organization, but you do need to be careful to stay well within those guidelines to avoid encountering other problems with the article. No reason going to all the trouble to rework the article only to have it challenged for other reasons. :)
Alternatively to temporarily restoring, I can e-mail a copy to you. We don't usually e-mail copyright problem articles, but these are not ordinary circumstances. That would spare you having to complete it by Christmas, which is when it will come due for deletion again if I restore it now. Just let me know which you would prefer. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to guarantee the publication of these logos ONLY on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant only to Wikipedia the right to use the work, for so not allowing any re-use in a commercial product or otherwise, nor any right to modify them, nor allowing third parties to re-use them without consent.
It's legit, but otherwise useless for us. The procedures recommended by the Italian OTRS agent may be valid on It Wiki, but not En Wiki. You're right on with the useless {{Non-free with permission}} tag and with the need for a FUR. I've let the uploader of the latter two know (s/he is an OTRS agent and evidently a regular contributor on It Wiki) that we do things differently here. I'd add the FUR as a courtesy, but as you know images are not really my focus. I don't know if we'd generally permit File:A Different View.png and File:Politikon.png to be used on a page for which neither is the primary logo. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Brinkley is certainly notable enough and should have an article on wikipedia. However, if you copied the article from another website that is plagiarism at least, and it is usually also a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material. If you wish to create an article on Joel Brinkley, then you must write the article in your own words rather than copying someone else's.
Thanks, Kleopatra. :) His notability was not in question. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. We would certainly welcome an article on this individual, but it needs to be provided by somebody who is willing to work within our policies. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Moondriddengirl
Hello Moonriddengirl-
My name is Craig Walker - (Craig F. Walker.) I feel kind of weird approaching you with this question. But here goes- A few months ago I noticed someone had created a profile for me on Wikipedia. I thought it was kind of nice that some took the time- but the actual profile wasn't very well done. Now i see you have deleted it.
I guess I am struggling - trying to decide which is worse... a bad profile - or no profile.
Since I am not familiar with the procedure at Wikipedia - i am hoping you can share your thoughts with me via email at <cwalker@denverpost.com> I do look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Cfwalker (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) craig[reply]
Be well- Craig F. Walker
Staff Photographer
The Denver Post
101 West Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 80202
Hi Craig. While I can't speak for Moonriddengirl, I will say that she is known on wikipedia for her work deleting copyright violations. The article was probably plagiarized from a source without proper attribution, and it was probably a violation of the copyright to post the article on wikipedia. Wikipedia must delete these articles as soon as possible. Moonriddengirl does a lot of this work.
Sadly, most plagiarized articles on wikipedia tend to be badly written, also.
I suspect you are notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, and I think that having a good wikipedia article on you would be an asset to the encyclopedia. I don't have time to write one right now, but I will be glad to edit one should it appear or to add one about you in a few weeks. If one is created, feel free to post on my talk page, and I will make sure it is a well-written and well-monitored article without copyright violations. Actually, Moonriddengirl will take care of the last point. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Kleopatra. :) This situation is the same as the one above. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. Our policy is that contributions by people who repeatedly violate our copyright policies may be deleted indiscriminately. Ordinarily I would suggest you write a new article, but since we discourage autobiographies, I'd be happy to put up a new "stub" (or brief article) on you. You're clearly notable. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done. I've freshly researched and created a new article. Should you be willing to donate a photograph of yourself for it, please let me know, and I'll fill you in on the process. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl and Kleopatra - Thank you so much for the quick response and for creating the nice profile. I really do appreciate it. I would be happy to share a picture - and more info if you think it is needed. Just let me know what to do. As I said before- Wikipedia is new for me but I'm learning... and hoping I'm using this messaging system properly. Again thank you - and I'll look forward to hearing from you. All best, Cfwalker (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and you are doing just fine. :) I would love to find more information, especially about your background (we like to include at least year of birth and birth state), but we run into the odd Wikipedia terrain that I must have a published source to draw it from. I cannot take it from you directly. :) (This, to meet two of our core content policies on verifiability and original research.) Can you by any chance provide me with a link to any published documents that might supply that information?
As to a picture, that would be fabulous. If you're willing, we do need you to license it so that our downstream reusers can also publish it. Our licenses require permitting derivative works and also commercial reuse. Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for the form letter, and I'm happy to clarify any of it. :) As you are a photographer, I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that generally the copyright of photographs of you will belong to somebody else; we can only accept photographs you've taken of yourself or for which you acquired copyright, as with works for hire. We would, of course, also dearly love to be able to display an example of your work, but I know that our licensing requirements make this an unlikely request. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find. I looked for a bio with my birthdate and place - but no luck. I was born 07/14/1966 in Shreveport, LA but I don't mention it often because i grew up in York, PA. That's where i consider home. But I'll do some more looking. I'll also try to find a self portrait - and talk with my boss about offering you a picture from the actual story. I'm sure Wikipedia would be fine - but you mentioned it could be published in other places as well? Talk soon - and thank you. Cfwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC) cfw[reply]
Thanks. :) If I don't find a published source with your date of birth, though, I can't use it, even if you faxed me your birth certificate. If there's not a published source yet, we can leave it until you manage to slip it in to an interview somewhere. :) Yes, it could and almost certainly would be published in other places as well. Wikipedia is a project designed to accumulate information that can be disseminated widely, even commercially, so long as the content remains free and so long as attribution is provided. The license we recommend is creative commons attribution sharealike. I can well understand that your publisher (and probably even you) would object to releasing one of your Pulitzer series under that license, though we would (of course) happily accept a low res version. But if you feel inclined to donate any photograph, it could be from any part of your career. It would be used in the article as an example of your work, but might be used elsewhere for other reasons. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Non free logos
Dear MRG, thanks a lot for your help! I'm not that used to en.wiki policies for logos. ;) I (think I) fixed the descriptions, may you take a look at them and tell me if everything's ok? Sorry for disturb. ;) -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop13:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text based copyright Question on National Register Documents
Hello MRG,
My question is if I can add the information (text) on the National Register Nomination document here as found on their website. This would help articles such as Hacienda Santa Rita of which the linked document is the subject. Since this is a US Government form (NPS form 10-900, or OMB No. 1024-0018), can I disregard the institution that prepared the form and assume all text contained therein is PD? Or is this text on the form subject to intellectual rights? I find that the text in these documents are highly encyclopedic and would not be asking otherwise. Also, If the text is PD, what is the best way to add to the Articles? QuAzGaA19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish, but I'm afraid not, unless we can find some proof that they have required the preparers to yield their copyright. :/ The United States Government is not precluded from hosting documents that are governed by copyright, and their website here is a bit vague on whether or not text is one of the unmentioned "such as" elements that may be copyrightable. I myself personally wrote to one submitter to see if I could get copyright clearance or if they could clarify for me if they were required to relinquish their copyright, but I never heard back. Tell you what: they have an e-mail. I'll write them and ask. Maybe they'll be willing to clear it up. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interupt but Moonriddengirl's right. At least one of the participants of National Register of Historic Places NRHP personally emailed the register folks and they said much the same thing. They post the docs like the one you linked too on their site but by their own admittance they don't control the copyright status. My advice would be to go to whomever prepared the document and prepare an OTRS request allowing WP to use the document (and potentially others they might have prepared). Good luck though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you I hope all is well. I am going to try again to create this article. I am sure you get hundreds of messages and so I am not expecting you will recall our conversation from a few months ago. Please let me know if I need to fill out any new forms to re submit this. I am going to try and make whatever changes are needed.
Thanks for reminding me; you've changed your name since we last spoke. :) I do have to caution you again that your connection to this subject may create problems, but if you are responsive to concerns, it may work out all right. In case you've lost your old identity, I found my last notes to you here. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HI,
What was my name when we last spoke? I am not sure what to do at this point. I do not work in a marketing capacity for Mr. Sernack any more but I still train there and was really looking to do this to help him out. Similar to this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Schulmann although I see this one has some issues as well but it looks like it is at least up as an article. I have been searching the internet for items that I might be able to use to satisfy the notablity criteria but am having a hard time. Here is one I found:
http://gma.graciemag.com/2010/01/gma-newsflash/
Slim pickings to say the least.
Part of the problem I am having I am sure is a result of George being a relatively humble person and as such, does not look for or crave the lime light.
In any event, and based on your comments I am thinking that maybe trying to do this is not going to work out. I don't want to submit this inccorectly and make it harder to get approved at a later point. I may doing more harm to him then helping him at this point.
I assume your busy and I don't want to waste your time but can you confirm my assumptions?
User:Rserpa621. :) There is the change that if you submit it without verifying that he meets notability that the article will be deleted in a way that may make it more difficult to create an article for him later. If the community decides through a deletion debate that he does not meet notability guidelines for people, then subsequent articles about him may be held to a higher standard of proof. I don't want to discourage you unduly, but I have seen this happen. I am myself a bit conservative about what articles I create for that reason; I look for strong sources to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Previously the page for Marc S. Wilson was deleted for copyright issues. I understand why you deleted it. However, I did and continue to have permission from Marc S. Wilson to use the bio straight from the website, www.ksc.ks.gov. If you need his permission personally, please let me know. If you do not agree to publish the previous article, what about the following for the Marc S. Wilson page?
Marc S. Wilson is the Kansas Securities Commissioner. He was appointed by Governor Mark Parkinson to serve as Kansas Securities Commissioner in May 2010. He previously practiced law at Kansas City-area firm Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, specializing in financial services, corporate and nonprofit clients on matters involving mergers and acquisitions, governance, capital structure, regulatory compliance and administrative law.
Wilson earned a J.D. and LL.M. (master of laws) in banking and financial law from Boston University School of Law and an M.B.A. from the Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned B.A. degrees in Political Science and African and African-American Studies from the University of Kansas. He was born and raised in Hiawatha, Kansas.
Hi. :) It's not me that it needs to be sent to, but the Wikimedia Foundation. Please send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please be sure to include the name of the article and the url of the website. Given that it's a holiday, it may be a little longer than usual (about a week) before you get a response, but if there are any questions about the license, you should hear from a volunteer soon what needs to be cleared up.
In terms of the proposed content, I'm afraid it may be a bit close to the source still for us to use. But if you've got permission, we shouldn't need to worry about it. If you send in your permission letter in the next day or two, let me know here and I'll try to follow up on it immediately. After Wednesday, I am traveling myself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The accuracy of the article was not in question. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. We would certainly welcome an article on this individual, but it needs to be provided by somebody who is willing to work within our policies. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm willing to block for evasion since its clear you and CLU (forgive the paraphrasing, please) consider 94.194 Dromeaz...tho I would be more inclined to just toss their edits down the memory hole considering the implication that he has a bunch of IPs at his disposal. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an e-mail to permissions from my dartmouth.alum.org account. Hope this is enough proof of my authorship of the original student paper. Thanks so much for your quick reply! Happy Holidays :)
Dear Moonriddengirl, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan[talk] ≈14:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
