User talk:Barry221056

Eureka!
The reworded paragraphs you added look great, and tell the reader far more than the original point of contention. Thanks for fixing this up. Rimmeraj 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hi Barry, the article you created at "Red Ribbon Rebellion" contained text lifted directly from http://www.communitylaw.org.au/loddoncampaspe/a8_publish/modules/publish/content.asp?id=19293&navgrp=1068 which is copyrighted. The page has been deleted. Please be careful not to violate Wikipedia's content policies. Feel free to contact me on my talk page regarding this matter. Thanks,  Dei zio  talk 13:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I'm finding it difficult to ascertain whether some of your other contributions satisfy the relevant Wikipedia policies. If you have created or edited any other articles using text directly or effectively lifted from non-free sources, it would be great if you could edit the material and ideally bring in info from other sources. The formatting of several articles you have edited is also out of step with the Manual of style.  Dei zio  talk 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi Barry, sorry if you felt accused. Wikipedia must be very careful not to breach copyrights. Read the relevant policies, keep practicing with the style and references and you'll be fine. The text in question existed at the quoted website, and as that website did not explicitly state that material there is free to use under the GFDL or a compatible license it cannot be reproduced here, regardless of where it originated or how many other sites it can be found on. As far as "significance" goes, it's up to editors to assert and establish notability within articles. If an article does not satisfactorily do so it can be challenged by any editor. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, to improve Wikipedia, and I'd rather not be called the Wiki-police for doing so. Stick at it, happy editing.  Dei zio  talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)