User talk:Dani Plana

Welcome!
Hi, Dani Plana. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Deunanknute (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Do you have references for the information in the article? Deunanknute (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Roxane Butterfly
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Roxane Butterfly, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.perpifunk.cat/dance-teachers/roxane-butterfly/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Roxane Butterfly and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Roxane Butterfly, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Roxane Butterfly. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Roxane Butterfly with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Roxane Butterfly saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Deunanknute (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Update regarding copyright concern
Since we do not yet have verification of permission by the processes set out above and sufficient time has passed since the placement of the notice, the article has been deleted for copyright concerns. This deletion is not necessarily permanent. If you have already sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (if you are not the copyright holder or have co-authored the material, release under CC-BY-SA-compatible license alone is sufficient), the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed by the Wikimedia Communications committee. Likewise, if you have not yet sent a letter, you still may (or resend it, if you believe your original may have been lost), and the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed.

As Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, it is essential that we receive external proof of authorization in order to ensure that we remain compliant with US Copyright law. It is also essential that we verify that copyright holders understand the extent of the release they are authorizing, in that our licenses permit modification and reuse in any forum, even commercial publication, as long as authorship credit is maintained and future copies are compatibly licensed.

Please note that once permission is verified, the material may be evaluated and altered to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Although we appreciate donations, we cannot guarantee that material donated will be retained.

If you have questions about the verification procedure, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Alternatively, you might address them at the talk page of the copyright policy, which is generally monitored by volunteers experienced in processing such matters. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We sent an email to wikipedia
Hi,

The information on this entry was written by Roxane as it's her own résumé (Curriculum vitae). That's why Roxanne sended an email to permissions-en@wikipedia.org on Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:33 PM to say that the licence of that text is Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)

Thanks!

Dani Plana (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not written your article as it has been deleted, but I would like to let you know that writing a resume on Wikipedia is not a good idea at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that writes about noteworthy subjects, not a job search website. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No copyright violation
We have asked to Perpifunk.cat to change their information in order to avoid you to think we are copying their text. So there is no copyright violation now. Is that ok?

If not, please tell us what should we do. Thank you.

Dani Plana (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the copyright status of the text is fairly irrelevant. There's no way language that promotional would be allowed on Wikipedia whether it was suitably licenced or not. If you intend to write an article about Roxane Butterfly (and I'm not sure that you should, since you seem to have a conflict of interest regarding the subject), then you would still need to start from scratch, using information from multiple, reliable, independent sources to create your own, neutrally worded, text. Yunshui 雲 水 15:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References added + how to write it less advertising + how to avoid the deletion of the article
Hi, I've added some references from multiple independent sources. I still have to add more New York Times References, as there are many articles that talk about her dance style. But I don't know how to write it less advertising, as my english is not good enough. Could someone please delete whatever you find promotional? It's a pity if she is not in the wikipedia only because of the non neutral language, as she is one of the best tap dancers in the world. I've deleted what it seemed to me more promotional, but if you still consider that it too much, just tell me or change it.

I also would like to know how to avoid the deletion of the article. May I just delete the message of deletion on top of the article?


 * Hi, Dani - it's definitely okay to delete the prod template if you feel you've addressed the concerns that are described there. I agree that you have, so I removed it myself. The article can certainly still use a lot of work, but I can see you've worked hard to provide appropriate sources and improve the article's tone, and I think that's great. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)