Welcome to my talk page
Hi, I'd like to help with the German Christmas Traditions, Cuvtixo 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Halloween traditions
I also drop you a line: to appreciate if an article is expanded, weak passages are improved (not removed). User:Yy-bo 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I only removed some items to avoid the listcruft problem and to try to incorporate them ultimately into the main text, as is preferable. I have put a lot of time into the article and I want to see it succeed. --The Argonaut 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I have done more work on this article than anyone else. --The Argonaut 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you over the labour you have put in. It has saved the article, IMHO. Keep up the good work Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, it's appreciated. --The Argonaut 23:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you over the labour you have put in. It has saved the article, IMHO. Keep up the good work Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I have done more work on this article than anyone else. --The Argonaut 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
List of haunted locations AFD
You may be interested to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of haunted locations Your coments would be most welcome, Nice work on the Ghost Tours article BTW, another one for my watchlist.Ghostieguide 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvios
Hello. Today I've run into you tagging a zillion paranormal articles as copyvios. I've got a few suggestions and questions about this.
- When you tag an article as a copyvio you are supposed to blank the article and replace the text of the article with the copyvio tag.
- The copyvio tag has a parameter where you put the source of the copyvio (the URL for a website, or the name of the book or whathaveyou). You can use it like this {{copyvio|http://www.questmagazine.com/ghosttours.html}}. I've fixed one for you, but not the rest.
- A quick glance through a couple of article histories and a look at the website that is the supposed source of the copyvios leads me to ask - are you Hal Siemer as User:86.129.166.136 claims (you don't have to answer this - there is no requirement to reveal your real life identity)? If so, are these really copyvios? Either way, although User86.129.166.136 seems to think you are using Wikipedia to promote your website it doesn't quite seem that way to me. If you are him and you wrote it for both Wikipedia and Questmagazine concurrently then you knew when you submitted it here that you were licensing it under the GFDL where it could be "edited mercilessly [and] redistributed by others", and indeed the notices on the webpages on Questmagazine indicate that it is free to redistribute. If it was on Quest first (before it was on Wikipedia) then Wikipedia should link back to Quest and User:86.129.166.136 is wrong to remove the links. If, however, it was submitted to Wikipedia first then Quest should technically link back to Wikipedia. At any rate, I don't think it's really a copyvio, especially if you wrote it yourself and submitted it both here and there yourself. What's your take on this? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I copied these from Quest since they give permission on their site as long as the author, magazine, and a link are included. I apologize for not blanking the pages (I didn't know that was supposed to be done.) I'm not sure what is the correct thing to do. I did not get special permission from Quest but I thought it would be OK since the cites and link were included, but these have been removed. --The Argonaut 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would think it would indeed be ok since you cited them and included a link. I'm not sure why the IP removed the citation - references aren't spam. I've asked on the IP's talk page. We'll see what the IP says. I'll also bring it up at the villiage pump and admin noticeboard and we'll see what others say. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I may be offline for awhile (I'm traveling out of the country), so if I don't respond, please don't feel I'm ignoring you. Thanks again, --The Argonaut 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- One final note. The IP that criticized my edits is from Amsterdam. There is a Dutch editor, Rex Germanus, aka Rex, that I and several other editors have had problems with (see Talk:German Christmas traditions). He has been placed on parole in the past for his editing of German related sites. Although not overly relevant to the issue directly, it may explain the IP's motivation if it is he (in light of a comment I made on another editor's talk page last night, I suspect it is Rex Germanus). --The Argonaut 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I may be offline for awhile (I'm traveling out of the country), so if I don't respond, please don't feel I'm ignoring you. Thanks again, --The Argonaut 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would think it would indeed be ok since you cited them and included a link. I'm not sure why the IP removed the citation - references aren't spam. I've asked on the IP's talk page. We'll see what the IP says. I'll also bring it up at the villiage pump and admin noticeboard and we'll see what others say. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I copied these from Quest since they give permission on their site as long as the author, magazine, and a link are included. I apologize for not blanking the pages (I didn't know that was supposed to be done.) I'm not sure what is the correct thing to do. I did not get special permission from Quest but I thought it would be OK since the cites and link were included, but these have been removed. --The Argonaut 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is why it may be a good reason to re-write all the articles that use Quest as a base from scratch. I mentioned this on the discussion page for hauntings and this is a good example of why I did. Articles on Wikipedia need to be free from copyright because they are open source and repurposed through the GNU Free Documentation License, to anyone, anywhere. If someone wanted to reuse material on Wikipedia, they should only have to abide by the policies of Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License, and not have to worry about a third-party's unclear copyright usage.
- Although Quest may say that they allow someone to reuse the article's content, it's not really free from copyright. It's not public domain, nor is it licensed through clear policies like the Creative Commons license. There's an important distinction there. Although Quest may allow someone to use the article:
- Quest -> Someone else
- The way it works on Wikipedia is that articles can be used again by third parties:
- Quest -> Wikipedia -> Someone else
- Quest has not clearly authorized Wikipedia to regrant licensing.
- I also pointed out that with the vast amount of resources out there in terms of sources and contributors, there is no reason to start with someone else's article as a base. It pains me to say this because of the extra time and contributions people have put into the articles, but I vote re-write.
- --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)