User talk:Dennis N. Griffin

Re: Las vegas and the mob
First, Dennis, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you choose to continue to contribute. As far as your article that I deleted, because it was written about a single person who already has a Wikipedia article, another editor had turned the article simply into a redirect to Anthony Spilotro. Then, as it was highly unlikely anyone would ever search "Las vegas and the mob" in an attempt to get to his article, I deleted that page (the one you created) as an implausible redirect. In regards to your book, it is considered self-promotion and a conflict of interest to create an article about your own work. Though this is strongly frowned upon, it would still be acceptable (for example, I created an article about a friend of mine who is a musician, and that page still stands), but the article would have to be written from a neutral point of view and be supported by reliable sources demonstrating the book's notability, i.e. book reviews from respected journalists/papers/web sites, interviews with you about the book, etc. (Also, sorry for linking you to so many policies and guidelines, but it's truly the best way to say what I'm trying to say.) My best advice would be to find these sources and cite them; barring that, if you feel there is important information that's currently not included in Spilotro's article, you can add it to his article and cite your book.

I hope that helps. Best regards, Mike (Kicking222) 01:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

Kicking 222,

Sorry that I didn't see this prior to posting this:

I'm requesting clarification regarding the deletion of my newly created page. Ref: 19:21, 22 March 2009 Kicking222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Las vegas and the mob" ‎ (R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)

My subject is as the title indicates, Las Vegas and the Mob. It is about the Tony Spilotro era in Vegas, but not solely about Tony. I have no problem with doing a re-title or adding the page to something already existing, such as Las Vegas History. The source information for the page was from the research for the two books I've written on the subject. The Battle for Las Vegas was used as the basis for the NGC documentary Vegas Mafia. CULLOTTA was co-authored with Frank Cullotta, Tony Spilotro's former friend and lieutenant. I felt these books are legitimate references, but if you feel they are being used as piblicity or ads, I have no issue with removing them. The main thing is that the true story be told, and that's what I've done. I'd appreciate if you take another look and see if anything can be salvaged for use.

Thanks,

Denny Griffin


 * Denny,
 * I think the right course of action would be to add sourced information you feel is notable to existing articles. It will be difficult to have articles on your books, as you need to provide references and it would be a big conflict of interest, but you can always make constructive edits to other articles. As with any article on Wikipedia, it's possible someone will think you're trying to self-promote (even if you aren't) by adding references to your own works, but if not, the edits will stand.
 * I do hope you are encouraged to contribute. Wikipedia can always use an expert on any topic, but I can also understand the fine line one has to walk when making contributions without creating a COI. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask; next time, please comment here- just hit the "New Section" button on top of the page- so I will get an alert letting me know you commented. In the meantime, I'm going to put what you'd previously written at User:Dennis N. Griffin/Las Vegas and the Mob, in case you want to access what you specifically wrote (though, considering you've got two books under your belt, I don't know if you'll need it).
 * Sincerely, Mike (Kicking222) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cullotta
Sure, I don't see anything at all wrong with creating Frank Cullotta. In general, if someone has notability asserted by multiple reliable third-party reliable sources, and they don't have a Wikipedia article, you can't go wrong with creating one. (As an example, this article was deleted because there were no references and no notability was asserted, so I rewrote it, added references from well-known sources, established the subject's importance, and the article stands sans contention.) If there are articles or books on him besides yours, then there's enough for at least a short article on him. I'd check out Citing sources to get an idea of when and how to insert sources. As far as your books, if they are respected works (again, see the page I've mentioned before on what constitutes a reliable source), then there is no reason you shouldn't be able to cite your own book- though note that an autobiography (even a co-written one) does not count as a third-party source, so you will need multiple works besides your own. This doesn't mean that you can't use Cullotta at all- a sentence that begins with "Cullotta claims" or "According to Cullotta" is completely fine- but it does mean that you can't say "Cullotta was" or "Cullotta did" unambiguously without citing another source.

If you do decide to create the article, feel free to ask other editors (perhaps check the history of the Spilotro page to see who has made the largest and/or most edits) or enlist people you've interviewed in the past, and please check out How to edit a page to get a feel for using markup and writing in prose that is appropriate for the encyclopedia. And of course, don't be afraid to ask me for help or guidance. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How to verify copyright permission for article Frank Cullotta
Hello, Dennis N. Griffin.

Thank you for your interest in donating material from CULLOTTA – The Life of a Chicago Criminal, Las Vegas Mobster, and Government Witness to Wikipedia. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes. The article has been blanked to allow time for that verification to proceed.

The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or co-licensing it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which permit modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may need to be removed. A statement such as the following would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." If you decide to take this route, please put a link to that release on Talk:Frank Cullotta so we can restore the contents.

Alternatively, you may choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. There is a boilerplate release form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please provide a clear link to the website in your e-mail and specify by name the articles on Wikipedia in which the material is being used. Once your e-mail is received and processed by a member of the Communications Committee, the article's contents will be restored if your release is legally sufficient. Please make a note that you've done this on Talk:Frank Cullotta to help guard against premature deletion of the page. You can compose a note or very simply paste the following on the talk page, brackets and all:

If you decide you don't wish to release the material into public domain or under the terms of CC-BY-SA and GFDL, you are welcome to rewrite the text from scratch at [ this temporary page]. As long as the material is otherwise compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it will be used to replace the previous contents. Please leave a note at Talk:Frank Cullotta saying you have done so.

If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may wish to review Starting an article or Your first article. If you are closely related to the subject matter, you may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines to get an idea how best to proceed. It may be necessary once permission is verified to address other concerns in the text, if it is otherwise inconsistent with our policies and guidelines.

We apologize for the additional steps necessary, but as copyright is a matter of legal concern, we must ensure that we not only protect the rights of copyright holders, but also guard the Wikipedia project against inadvertent infringement.

The article will be revisited in about a week to see what additional steps have been taken or may be necessary. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. We also have a help desk which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2009 (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.

Thank you. MLauba (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)