User talk:Duk/Archive4

User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp

Hi Coolcat, I'll restore this version per the discussion on the article's talk page. But there is still some material that is copied from the previously published text (leftover from your refactoring); for example, The range of new products under cultivation is also expanding appears at [1].

I'm going to leave sentences like these out, just so there is no more controversy. The information can be re-written and added later. Please wait till I'm done restoring (I'll do it in parts) and be very carefull not to add any more previously published text by accident. --Duk 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll strike out text on User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp that still needs to be re-written.--Duk 19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, its done--Duk 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I wont be touching the article untill you are done. I tried to rewrite the sections you marked, check if it works. Here: [2] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Song

what's the Johnny song a possible violation of? (unsigned User: 60.229.228.56)

Hi, posting song lyrics is a copyright violation (in most cases). In this case the article identifies the song as a recent composition of Morgan Campbell. So the article vioates Morgan Campbell's copyrights.

If you are Morgan Campbell then your submission is ok and licencened per the GFDL by virtue of your submitting it. Or, if you can document that these lyrics are PD or GFDL then they are ok to post. If any of these are true then you need to note this on the article's talk page (and its listing at WP:CP). --Duk 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Campbell gave us permission to post lyrics on here, do you want his email to contact him?

Please note this at WP:CP (Johnny Song is listed in the July 19 section) and on the article talk page.--Duk 13:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted. You noted earlier that permission was granted to publish these lyrics, but we can't take anonymous grants of copyrights. Also, you didn't make the permission notes on the article's talk page and at WP:CP as I asked.

If you can demonstrate that permission has been granted then please contact me and I will un-delete the page (this will only take a minute). The best way to do this (if Morgan Campbell has a website) is to send an email from the site's contact address granting GFDL permission. Best regards--Duk 15:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Processing copyvios

I'd like to help with the workload of clearing the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. Leaving aside for now the ones with complications, is there anything special to know? Here's what I'm assuming: Entries older than 7 days (and no clarifying discussion) should be removed. Double check to make sure the copyright claim seems correct. Create new article with /Temp version if there is one. Leave redlinks in other articles to encourage re-creation (hopefully not copyvio). Anything else? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. I'll start out slow, but hope to contribute to the janitorial work more. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP House Ordos...

I'm looking through Copyright Problems, trying to clean out the ones I can, but I'm puzzled by this one. What is the current status on this? Does [version] contain the copyvios from the three sites listed at WP:CP? What about the House Ordos/Temp version? Can we just replace it with that? Is there a behaviour problem with any editors of the page? Generally, I want to either resolve it, or figure out what to put when I move it to Older the 7 days? Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 23:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Mencia

Hi. I noticed you'd been patrolling Carlos Mencia. I just re-wrote it from scratch. This should eliminate further copyvio problems, though one never knows. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your note: Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House Ordos

What makes you think that that there are copyright infringements? The Ordos page didn't copy even remotely from the page that you cited. So don't ruin other peoples hard work, and please revert the page to normal, thank you. User:Jesse Mulkey

House Ordos

The speaker was refered to as a hideous creature in the game diaolgue on the official westwood website and in the in-game movies, not originaly by a random forumer, that piece of dialogue is copyright Westwood Studios and is open content.

House Ordos

Westwood Studios are dead, so any information of their games is now under fair use.

RFA, The GAP project

Hi Coolcat, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek you state; Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source.

Could you please cite your source and identify the PD publication, or remove the claim that this material is PD.

I'm the Copyvio people deleted the page anyway and there was no evidence persented at the time showing that this material is PD. If you can demonstrate that this material is PD then please do and I'll reconsider, otherwise stop claiming that it was improperly deleted. --Duk 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bothering me with this? It is old argument which we discussed. You are a bit to defensive and this is starting to bother me. The stuff you are throwing me is coppied from the RfC. GEEEZ! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's trying to harass you, Coolcat. If you feel that Davenbelle unfairly or inaccurately marked the article as a copyvio, then it would help if you made more information available about the source of the material. Without evidence to back up the assertion that the material is public domain, Duk had no choice to but to delete it as a copyright violation. He's bringing it up because you mentioned it in your RfArb case, and is hoping to clarify if you still believe the material to be public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove copyrights by sacrificing my identity, which I do not want to do. From his (duks) prespective what he did is right even though I wasn't violating copyrights but as he pointed out it would be retarded to accept "annonymous" copyrights. Since I can't/don't want to proove copyright status I had rested my case earlier on. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rfc entry was about the same material appearing on a Canadian PD source of which a Copy vio expert like duk would notice when checking for copy vios. That would be a proper "assume good faith" enviorment. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just mad I see duk "defending" himself again as I havent suggested/pushed the copyrights to arbcom evidence. The material on arbcom was coppied from the RfC which duk and several others discussed this matter to death. This was coppied to Arbcom listing, then was coppied to where it is now by an arbcom member as that is the porper procedure. So I am being yelled at by duk yet again. :( --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat, I'm more than happy to let this drop. But every time you claim this copyvio was mis-handled I will defend myself. The problem with your making a false claim like this, over and over again for months on end, is that people start to believe it, even if it isn't true. I'm not the one keeping this alive. --Duk 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the copy fo RFC on Arbcom request page. I was not the one copinging it nor do I feel it matters. Why the hell would I insist on something that I have rewritten better than the older version? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then please remove item number 5 under the Statement by Coolcat section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Duk 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS A GOD DAMN COPY OF RFC. Which was coppied to requests for Arbcom before your involvement in the RFC. And was coppied to Requests for "arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek" but NOT by me. I encourage you to start reading what I am posting you more carefully. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfull, then please remove the incorrect information. Striking it out would work too :) --Duk 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please do not waiste my time on this anymore. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

I noticed your sig links to User:Duk which redirects to User talk:Duk. You may want to modify it so that it links directly to your talk page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User spamming Copyvio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.28.194.168

Several of us have Copyvio'd the pages but there's a ton of them. Is there a way you can help? RasputinAXP 05:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

diaphragm seal

Your picture for diaphragm seal is great! We need more like this.ike9898 11:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain Catholic Encyclopedia (Sistine Chapel Choir)

Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. Articles which use text from the Catholic encyclopedia should have the the {{Catholic}} template added at the bottom. The online site is copyrighted, but that doesn't apply to the 1913 text (read Catholic Encyclopedia). You can safely put back the material you've removed which originated from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Hmm I guess that was a false alert, thanks for the heads up. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tougaloo College Copyright violation

Hi Dbraceyrules, a lot of the History section of this article looks like a copyright violation from various websites [6]. Can you please refactor a little more. --Duk 15:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I was under the impression that I was able to use this via the "fair use" policy. Sorry about that. Thanks for the alert. Dbraceyrules 15:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Turbine

My bad, I was thinking of the F machines. I have worked on 6 installed H units, you would think I would know better. TDC 18:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

An LM6000 GTG, being worked on. Basiclay the LM6000 is a 747 engine with an expanded turbine section to convert thrust into shaft power and reworked controls packages for power generation.

This is a picture I took of the inside of a boiler I was working on. Very hot, about 2800deg F.

A 15 year old GE Frame H STG.

I will try and get some more pictures for you. TDC 14:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how many gas turbine model articles have been written, but after the output and efficiency are given, this should be thrown in: at ISO conditions. TDC 17:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

GDFL

oops, sorry, my wording was a little bad that day, I will correct the message to say that "you can never retract it and it will be in the public domain and will be editted " which IMO is basically like having to copyright... thanks for noting that and happy editing. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

picky picky picky =P it is estentially available to the public and in the domain of the public for lack of a better word, feel free to reword my messages, but you get the idea =) i'm just gonna stay out of this as i seem to be making a fool of meself. Anyways, happy editing! Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lower bandwidth option for navigation popups

Hi, I noticed that you tried out my popups and then disabled it, commenting about the bandwidth. I've added an option to not use any bandwidth - if you add the line

 simplePopups=true;

to your user javascript file, then you should just see the list of links in the popups, and no downloading should happen at all. L upin 12:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pengo#RIFE

Hi, I'm the original copyright holder, Pengo has full permission from me to paste this text here.

Best regards,

Geert

I've sent an email requesting confirmation and will restore the article as soon as you answer. -Duk 01:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIFE

Please see WP:VFU. It was uniformly suggested to undelete there. I'm afraid the undeletion log doesn't allow for edit summaries. R adiant _>|< 23:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Paul Erdös.jpeg

This image has been tagged as a copyright violation (by User:Bemoeial). You noted that it was recently moved from commons, but the link to the commons image was dead. Can you update with copyright information? It's listed under the July 30 section at WP:CP. Thanks --Duk 02:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's fixed now. Thanks for leaving a note here. I would never have noticed otherwise. I commented more at WP:CP. dbenbenn | talk 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIFE reply

Hi Duk,

thanks for the message, I replied and confirmed the license permission.

Best regards.

Removal of Images

Thank you for deleting the images, as requested, which were originally uploaded with permission for use, though regrettably this was later withdrawn.

This image still remains on the list which is also none PD.

File:76-0169C 1858 76th Regimental Sergeants.jpg

I have also put the source info on the following image, though not the copyright status, I don't know if it's classed as PD or not. It is a photo I took of the head and shoulders of the 1st Duke of Wellington, from an original painting, which is life size, on display in the Trustees Boardroom. It is on loan to the Regimental HQ from the National Gallery.

NB The only images I will be uploading from now on are ones I create personally. Thank you for your help. Richard Harvey 09:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Field_Marshal_Arthur_Wellesley_KG_CCB_GCH_CoR_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg. I took the photo and I'm quite happy to make it PD, I just needed to be sure I was not creating a problem by doing it.Thanks Richard Harvey 19:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon map

I am the original author of this image. It was created several years ago for the Government of Newfoundland and as such has been distributed widely.

JcMurphy

copyvio vs. PUI

Heya, when you encounter images that might be copyvio's but you can't find a source or other evidence of their copyvioness, could you list them on WP:PUI instead of WP:CP? Thanks. --fvw * 22:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it would appear that movie stills are allowed under fair use (in the proper context, of course). I'm clearing out the aug 14 section of WP:CP now and unmarking the movie stills you marked, if you want to dispute their copyvioness check the section for aug 14 in the page history. --fvw * 22:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fvw, thanks for the note. You are right, images without a source should go to PUI. I had intended to look for the source (they are all obvious professional images) but didn't get them all.

Regarding the fair-useness of screenshots. I do and did object to these particular ones for specific reasons and explained why on the listing page. Did you miss this part? Anyway, some of the images that you put a fair use tag on are orphans (Image:Specmachine-a.jpg, for example). It's impossible to have a fair use rationale for orphans (I forgot to note this with the other reasons). Also a bunch are still tagged, did you want me to go and remove the tags? --Duk 23:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops no, I'd missed the reasons above, and they're very compelling (almost as compelling as the fact that if I didn't delete them for being copyvio's I'd have to IFD them). I've deleted the bulk of them apart from a few that are used in articles and are reasonable fair use. --fvw * 00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. you are the guy doing the work clearing these, so I'm not really contesting. :) --Duk 00:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please do. Anything to alleviate the tedium of WP:CP :) --fvw * 00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

a mistake...

Sirs, You have a mistake on the diagram of the 30-06 the width of a 30-06 is .308 thew .338-06 is the nearest bullet I can find to .340.

Ralph

(PS see this link: http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd3006.jpg)

Thanks for the note Ralph. I think my illustration is correct; the .308 dimension is the casing ID (not shown on my drawing) and the .340 dimension is the casing OD (shown on both my drawing, and the drawing you reference as the .3397 dimension). --Duk 17:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi Duk, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for watching out for my page & talk - I've blocked the pest for a month this time. jimfbleak 19:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for work on WP:CP

		An Award
		I, JesseW, the juggling janitor, award you, User:Duk, this Working Man's Barnstar for your dedicated work listing and closing items on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. We shall clear out the backlog, eventually!

Enjoy it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I endorse this barnstar - it's well-deserved. -Willmcw 22:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thank you for your support for my RfA, We shall surely interact more. I am certain that our association shall grow. --Bhadani 10:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont article

Sorry about that...I just realized, I was thinking of the wrong meaning of the word found. Brian1979 11:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 204.184.37.2

Left you a message at: User_talk:204.184.37.2 WikiDon 20:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiDon

copyright image

Hi, Would it be possible for you to delete the image below, uploaded by hammersfan, to replace one from the list you previously removed after a copyright issue? or do I need to put it up on the copyvio page.?

He has put it up as the Cap Badge of the Regiment, which it is not, it is the combined badge of the Regimental Association.

File:DWR.jpg

I can tell from the colours used, lions tail shape, lettering within the scroll, design on the blanket below the houda and the fact that part of the original red background is still showing through the scroll upturns that this is a poor copy of a design I did, used on the Regimental Website, as part of my work for the Regimental Headquarters. Hammersfan has no authority to use this design. Richard Harvey 09:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I can't delete this image without it first being listed at either Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

I am also allowed to delete the image if the uploader requests it, and the image is unused. (It looks like you notified the uploader and asked that he do this).

Since you are the creator and copyright holder, and assuming that the uploader doesn't request its removal, I would list it at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You need to explain the different versions that were uploaded, there seem to be two in history, are they both copyright violations? And you need to explain that one or both are derivative works.

Also, the uploader has claimed fair use for the image, so some people might object to its removal on those grounds. However, if the image is technically incorrect as you say, and therefore unused, then there is no fair use rationale. If this is the case then menti

on it. --Duk 16:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DUK. Thanks for the info regarding two images in the history. It appears hammersfan has uploaded a second image over the top of the imagevio item. The Imagevio item is the one using the Redlion Rampant over the Circular Hindoostan with crest below. The poor quality, childish, image now on the page, with a grey lion is the newly uploaded item. Which only incorporates part of the copyright infringed image, ie the scroll & the unfurled Banner. Incidentally this is still not the Cap Badge of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. That can be seen Here[3] As hammersfan has altered the image I will amend my entry on the image page. Richard Harvey 00:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

There appears to be the same problem again at William_Wegman_(photographer). See discussion. - Wgsimon 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DWR.jpg

By all means delete this image, as I have uploaded it to a different file name. Also, please inform Richard Harvey, that if he wants to create and upload an image of the cap badge himself, then he is more than welcome to do so, it makes no difference to me, otherwise stop being so petty. Hammersfan 11:15, 21 September 2005

Duk; Thanks for the deletion. I think the reason Hammersfan is not interested about it being removed is because he has now downloaded the cap badge from the Duke of Wellington's Website, removed the background and enhanced the image to darken it. Then uploaded it to Wiki, with a different name, again without permission from the site administrator. See: File:DWR1.jpg Richard Harvey 19:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duk; I feel Hammersfan has taken the image from the source provided by Richard Harvey, after the initial complaint, altered it then uploaded the image over the original image he uploaded. Check the image history and timings of each Image uploaded. If he had the item originally he would have uploaded that and provided the source, not the two previous images. ImageEditor 00:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duk, I Got your message. I've had a look back at the images in my files. I feel you will find the image is one from the list that you previously deleted a few weeks ago ie:- Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_small.jpg. If you check the history of the image you will find it to be identical to that. Richard Harvey 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the source of the image above onto the image's page - I also object to people insinuating and making allegations without bothering to check their facts. Hammersfan 12:05, 22 September 2005

As always, your advice is measured and helpful. Thank you for being a calm voice of reason. Hammersfan 16:20, 22 September 2005

Malta maps

Thanks a lot Duk for your help - they are in fact identical (and annotated in English which is better). I did in fact tag the image as being unkown because I wanted to check out its origins. I stumbled on those pictures in the mt.wiki (they aren't tagged there either), but when I tried to contact the Wikipedian who uploaded them I got no reply. --Roderick Mallia 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seasat image

Why was it necessary to delete the image of Seasat?

The image lacked source and copyright information. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was recently changed to address these images. Please see the notes above every image submission window; Images uploaded without source or licensing information will also be deleted if this information is not supplied within seven days. --Duk 23:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nosey & Derivative

Duk, Please delete both images, these were sent to me by a friend in Scotland who advised he had created them. Also thanks for the intro to the Sad at the Clinic website. I was unaware of it and will now take my friend to task at the weekend. ImageEditor 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DWR1.jpg

Duk, Thanks for the info. But I must admit to being a little confused now! I went to the www.slaidburn.org.uk website and couldn't find the cap badge image displayed anywhere on it, it appears to be a site about sheep farming and a village in Lancashire, UK. So how did hammersfan find the image to download, let alone know it was on there? If he had he would have uploaded it previously, not the prior offerings. I also note that the website owner claims all images as copyright and should be attributed to him; see www.slaidburn.org.uk/copyright_terms.htm . Richard Harvey 15:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the imagevio notice and the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21 --Duk 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

concerming article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood

Dear DUK.

Concerning the In Cold Blood pictures: Both have the following copyright:

I'm not sure if I have to load this information on or if you do. Let me know.

Regards sgurtd@yahoo.com

Photos

Younghoward and Billhayden are clearly tagged as "fair use", and this tagging has been approved by J Wales (see his Talk page). I have now tagged Youngcostello PD. The rest you can delete. Adam 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DWR1.jpg

The badge image, right down to the angles & shading, looks remarkably like the one located halfway down this website page at www.regiments.org:- [4] where it's copyright is marked up as MoD (UK Ministry of Defence). Perhaps the webmaster can tell you where he got it from?. 86.2.137.185 09:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Let me save you a lot of work. The 800-plus images I have uploaded fall into three categories

Those I have taken myself, which I think are all tagged accordingly. I may have forgotten about a few but I think I have tagged all of them.
The images of Australian politicians and Gobvernors-General, which I will defend on fair use grounds, as well as permission-to-use grounds, and which should all be tagged in the same way as younghoward if they are not so tagged already.
All others, which can be deleted without consultation if you so determine.

Adam 15:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will go through all the PMs and GGs and tag them. Adam 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Image copyright infringements

Could you take a look at this article. It seems to contain a large amount of images downloaded from other websites, which do not seem to have copyright permission given.
[[5]] 86.2.137.185 14:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of images on that page with Fair use claimed. If you disagree with the rationale given for the fair use claim on any individual image, or on their combined use in the article as a whole, you need to list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Fair_use_claims_needing_a_second_opinion --Duk 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio cleanup

First, I owe you an apology for reverting your application of a copyvio tag on the Winter Soldier Investigation article. I had assumed you were negligent (or being sneaky) when you tagged the article without listing it at WP:CP as required. I didn't realize at the time that the article had already been listed there weeks prior, and you therefor didn't need to list it.

Second, I've re-written much of the article on a /Temp page as suggested at WP:CP, and after discussing it here. Rather than try to rewrite the copyvio paragraph to your satisfaction, I've simply left it out. I was also careful to avoid including anything that would be construed as derivative of the copyvio material. 165.247.204.51 11:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't review your re-write because 1) no time, and 2) I'm not going down the path of approving someone elses writing (but if I happen to see something that looks accidentally copied I'll say something). As long as you write with your own words you shouldn't need to worry about copyright violations, and my only interest in that page is to keep it free of copyvios. Also, since the page has already been reverted and the copyvio resolved, can I suggest that you update the article bit by bit with your re-write, instead of replacing the entire article at once (this is just a suggestion, it will allow discussion on the talk page in case there are disagreements over the rewrite) ? --Duk 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, looks like you already replaced the article. Oh well, forget my bit by bit advice above. --Duk 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]