Talk:Mortem

Untitled
I wrote this original article and when I contributed it to the hessian wiki there was no information regarding the copyright and usage of any contributions, it only had a warning sign that articles could be edited. Since the information on the Mortem page is not based on the contents of the hessian wiki nor any of it's affiliated websites I feel that this is a case of fair use. Either that or the hessian wiki is misleading their contributors. Regardless, all the information on this page is directly from the official Mortem website and the official Mortem myspace so isn't the hessian wiki in violation of copyright too then?
 * If you can verify that the Mortem website has the same content, and someone listed on the Morten website e-mails either me or permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org confirming they wish to license the content under the GFDL, then you'll be fine. Or they can just post a note on the Mortem website indicating such.  &mdash; madman bum and angel 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the official Mortem myspace about it and asked if they'll send an approval. UltimateEnd 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
 * I have sent it to Copyright problems vs speedy deleting it. That gives you 7 days to obtain permission vs. deleting it now and having to request restoration. -- JLaTondre 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a reply from Mortem, they're happy with the article and gave me some additional information. I don't know if they have contacted permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org yet but I think it's safe to assume I have their approval. I am curious about something though, has the hessian wiki actually complained to wikipedia about the Mortem page or is wikipedia just being cautious? Like I said I didn't see any copyright info on the hessian wiki when I posted it there and in fact there is no copyright info on the hessian wiki at the moment either. Feel free to correct me if there is a clear disclaimer or something on the hessian wiki that mentions copyrights. UltimateEnd 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
 * The Hessian Wiki has no copyright policy, whereas Wikipedia does. We are dedicated to making our content free.  So all contributions must be licensed under the GFDL.  That's why we're "cautious".  :) &mdash; madman bum and angel 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been about a week now during which we've established that Mortem gives permission to use the information and that the hessian wiki doesn't claim copyright for any of its content. Oh, and I wrote the article. So could you allow this page now or are we still waiting for a reason? UltimateEnd 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we have not established that. They either need to send an email to permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org or change their website to state released under the GFDL. It is unfortunate, but anyone can claim to have permission or written something when they didn't. We have to have someway of verifying copyright permissions. I was going to suggest that you edit your userpage at that wiki to indicate you are the same user, but I see that the account which contributed the article has been indefinitely blocked from their wiki. -- JLaTondre 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was banned from the hessian wiki because I threatened to burn the admins house down and feed him to my pet alligator ;) I don't know if you can look up the IP of the user SMAIS there but it is the same as my IP. Either way the hessian wiki has no copyright policy so whether it goes against your principles or not using the article is still legal. And the only reason why you are requesting the permission of Mortem is because I said that my article was based on the information on their website. Can you point out similarities yourself or do you simply don't know what you are talking about? Can you even find the original source? I'll send Mortem a new email and ask if they have sent a mail to permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org yet. But please stop being so difficult when there is nothing wrong. Now I have to possibly annoy a band that I like because of your probable insecurities. Sure maybe sometimes contributors pretend to be someone else but you can't tell me that the majority of the contributors of wikipedia do that, so I think it would be fair to consider me innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. Otherwise I will take it as an insult. UltimateEnd 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was a direct copy, word for word, of the text on the other page. The other page existed prior to this one. The page was tagged as a copyvio before you claimed you wrote both. The link to the other page is specified on the copyvio notice. Are you seriously now trying to claim you didn't copy the text?
 * It is because the Hessian wiki doesn't have a copyright policy that there is an issue. As they don't claim it is not under copyright, we have to assume it is. Copyright is automatic. -- JLaTondre 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I wrote the article. So no I did not copy the text: I wrote it and pulled it from the original wordfile I wrote it in. What exactly is a line like "Are you seriously now trying to claim you didn't copy the text?" supposed to mean anyway? Because that's what I meant with insulting. I've been saying that I wrote the text ever since wikipedia started asking so of course I'm seriously trying to claim I didn't copy the text. Are you seriously trying to claim you want to help here or do you just get a kick out of annoying the hell out of people? Anyway, your permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org isn't working. Mortem told me that their mail returns with errors so I sent a test mail to permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org and got this: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo (dot) com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : 66.230.200.240 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 Address permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org does not exist Giving up on 66.230.200.240. So what does this mean? Did I type the address wrong or something? And before you even ask: yes I replaced (at) with @ and (dot) with. UltimateEnd 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, typo in the email address: it's "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (s in there).
 * As for the other part, it was your comment that said "And the only reason why you are requesting the permission of Mortem is because I said that my article was based on the information on their website. Can you point out similarities yourself or do you simply don't know what you are talking about? Can you even find the original source?" -- JLaTondre 13:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

new version
I put up a new version, let me know if you'd like to see any information verified. UltimateEnd 14:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd

Tell me why the article supposedly "meets Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)"

I've fully expressed Mortem's importance as being the first Peruvian metal band to tour Europe and the United States amongst other achievements. Mortem have acclaimed underground status, their presence on wikipedia is fully warranted when compared to other bands and articles that are on wikipedia. Like I wrote earlier if you want to see any information verified just say so.

"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of http://www.mortemperu.com, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12)"

That reason for speedy deletion is complete bull, tell me where you see any similarities between the wikipedia Mortem page and their official website. Let me tell you: there is none. How can you say "unquestionably a copyright infringement" here? Either prove your argument or drop it. I changed the article specially so that it wouldn't infringe copyrights. And according to Mortem they have sent mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" giving their permission for this article over two weeks ago. Maybe you don't like me but Mortem has a right to be on wikipedia. Deciding that Mortem isn't worthy of "encyclopedia status" is ridiculous. UltimateEnd 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Ultimate End

ok
I've added an "Unreferenced" code to the article, I hope me doing that wasn't against the rules but as I understand it it applies here. In the meantime I've had contact with Mortem again and they have informed me that they will try to work on a new biography. I've asked them to add this new biography themselves so that it would fall under the wikipedia rules concerning "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

It states that:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

* it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; * the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The history of Peruvian metal is poorly documented so it will be difficult to find sources that apply to the highest standards of academic research that wikipedia requests from it's contributors. Thus Mortem's own contribution is the best that wikipedia can expect in a situation as this. If anyone still wishes to dispute the reliability of the article it would probably be best that they wait until Mortem has found time to finish the article which will probably after the end of October (they have other things in their lives besides wikipedia, I'm sure you can understand that) In the meantime the Mortem article can be used as a stub if anyone can find verifiable information. If any administrator or experienced wikipedian sees a need to inform me of anything regarding the rules of contributing to wikipedia that I might have overlooked I'd appreciate it. UltimateEnd 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd