User talk:Bmcspecial

Thanks! This will be corrected. Bmcspecial (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Helburn

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Theresa Helburn, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.brynmawr.edu/library/speccoll/guides/helburn/helburn.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Helburn

As you have already learned, the CorenSearchBot has identfied your page as a copyright violation. Simply stating in the edit summary that you have permission is not sufficient. You should place any pertinent copyright information you have from Bryn Mawr on the article's talk page and make a note of that copyright information on the main page (something like "used with permission from Bryn Mawr. For details see the talk page."). I hope this helps. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Susan Grimes Walker

A tag has been placed on Susan Grimes Walker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No you are correct that you may do it that way. Essentially you are at that point releasing it under GFDL. You might find it easier to just change it on your website. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Permissions process

The article Theresa Helburn has come up for its seven day review following its tagging for copyright concerns. I see at the article's talk page that you indicate you have sent a letter to permissions. When that is received, a ticket number should be recorded at the article's talk page. It has been blanked in the meantime. You may want to review WP:Permissions if you're unsure that you sent the letter correctly. If it does not include all necessary information, then it may not be followed up.

Meanwhile, I see that you are also copying material to your userpage. I'm afraid that we must have clearance to display this as well. Copyrighted material cannot be placed anywhere on Wikipedia without verification of permission. The easiest way around this is to have Bryn Mawr release their material into GFDL, since that's effectively what it is doing in permitting placement of such material here anyway. Otherwise, you may find it simpler to avoid the issue by rewriting material in your own language.

I'm sorry for the extra difficulties of verifying this outside of Wikipedia's space itself, but as we do not require identity verification on account creation, we do need external evidence of permission for legal reasons. If you have any questions about this procedure, please let me know at my talk page. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional note that I have also blanked Susan Grimes Walker pending verification of permission. Again, sorry for the extra difficulties. Once your letter is received and logged, the material will be restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. We're just a little confused about the whole thing, as according to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials, we do not have to place notification of its license on the external site. See this:

If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or on your user page if your site covers a number of topics). This does require that your site have a posted email contact, or some other similar means for us to verify that we really do have the relevant permission. Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission, and we will be able to add your site to a list of those from which our editors may freely draw.

Is this just not true? It seems we are repeatedly being told this isn't okay. Bmcspecial (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is a problem with the procedure you quote (and thank you for quoting it; the guideline has been changed, as it was not in accord with more recent guidelines at WP:IOWN and WP:Permission). Most contributors who would write to the address posted at your site would then forward the permission to the same Wikimedia Foundation address which you've likely already mailed. Only a very few of Wikipedia's contributors are members of the Communication Committee. Only members of that committee have authority to log that information for Wikipedia. (You can read Wikipedia:OTRS for more about who they are and what they do.) I personally have acted as a go-between with other editors in the past in such matters, but even though I am an administrator on Wikipedia, I have not been able to speed the process in any way. Like many larger organizations, we suffer from problems with internal communication. If you've already sent the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, you've done as much as most of Wikipedia's contributors could do.

Because of this, the guideline that you quote was updated by another administrator here to read:

“ If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under a free license), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site.... For text, after sending the email, you may put the text into the article, then place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's discussion page.... Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. ”

(The note you made serves just as well as that template.) Material is blanked pending verification because of the serious legal and financial considerations here—legal in the problems that Wikipedia could face for knowingly hosting duplicated material and financial because Wikipedia is copied almost instantly by many mirror sites, which dilutes the marketability of text that is placed here. If a copyright holder does not consent to publication, our premature clearance of material could put them at serious disadvantage. In my personal experience, contributors who claim to have authority to place material are almost invariably telling the truth. It's the "almost" that creates problems for everyone.

Another problem we have, I'm told, is that our system is overwhelmed. We receive many communications, more than we have OTRS volunteers (who are carefully vetted, see meta:OTRS) to handle. This means that sometimes communications go unaddressed or are not addressed in a timely fashion. This may explain why you have not received a response to your e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. I know personally how frustrating that can be, as I have myself had to send multiple e-mails to the permissions address to have matters cleared.

I truly am sorry for the problems with this. I hope that you will be patient with us in navigating the somewhat cumbersome process. Meantime, if you would prefer to have an intermediary on this, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address. For security reasons, I do not publicly display this here, but you can reach me by clicking "e-mail this user" in the left toolbox at User:Moonriddengirl. I may not be able to expedite matters much or at all, but I may be able to see if there are issues in the permissions letter you have sent that need to be addressed, and I would be happy both to follow-up the e-mail to the Communications Committee if there is not prompt response and to make a note at the article's talk pages independently verifying that the permissions letter has been sent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response - we definitely appreciate the time and energy put into this process. We have received an email now, so hopefully things should be picking up pace now. Thanks! Bmcspecial (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grace Inez Crawford

The article Grace Inez Crawford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article written to promote a person who's work is in the collection of Brynmawr College, copied (with permission) from a webpage of the college. This seems to be the wrong reason to publish a biography on Wikipedia. It is unclear what her claim to notability is!

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sionk (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)