User talk:Dmbowden

Copyright concerns
I deleted Agranular cortex because it was a clear copyright violation of http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/centraldirectory.aspx?ID=2469

I now see that you have created a large number of similar articles, copying the material at the same UW source. Please stop immediately. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay...I see that you are likely Douglas M. Bowden, MD, as can be found here: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/copyright.aspx Please do continue to hold off on creating further articles...I want to be sure that you're properly licensing the content and that the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License works with our license. Give me a minute. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not the best to cover copyright discussions and the like, so I'm going off of Donating copyrighted materials. On that page, there is specific information about granting Wikipedia permission to copy material already online. Please follow those instructions. I'll try to make sure I don't miss anything more and enlist more copyright-savvy individuals. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78. Looks good, so long as the listed owner at http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/copyright.aspx actually does have the copyright, (which is the proper assumption for us to make). LeadSongDog come howl!  17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted Agranular cortex. Because I wasn't sure, I left messages at Copyright problems/2011 July 20 & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine so there may be more follow-up. Best of luck with your editing. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scientizzle, I wrote the following just before your most recent comment came in. Hi Scientizzle,

Thanks for your concern about a potential violation of copyright… and for not taking down all of the work we have done these last couple of weeks before checking to see if in fact there was a problem. We shall honor your request to make no more contributions until you are able to confirm that we are in compliance with Wikipedia permissions policy. In the meantime, the following information may help. If you go to http://braininfo.org and click the copyright statement you’ll see that ‘the work’ is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. The permissions statement is “Contents of this work may be downloaded, copied, cited and disseminated provided that proper attribution is given: BrainInfo (1991-present), National Primate Research Center, University of Washington, http://www.braininfo.org. “. If you click the hypertext ‘Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License’ you will see that the license is granted “With the understanding that : Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.” I as author of BI at the University of Washington am authorized to act in the capacity of copyright holder, and I hereby give permission to our staff and others not to attach the attribution statement to entries in Wikipedia. One of the reasons we felt free to copy text from BI into WP was that many descriptions of brain structures have been copied there by others, apparently without challenge. We have been happy to see that use of the material. Regarding your suggestion that we be adopted by a more experienced editor in Wikiproject: Since we started contributing a couple of weeks ago we have received good guidance from Looie496, and we consider ourselves associated with the Neuroanatomy section of the Neuroscience Wikiproject. As we enter stubs of new articles we try to hyperlink to related articles in WP and to edit those articles by inserting hyperlinks to the articles we enter. Is that ok? Please let us know when you come to a conclusion on the copyright issue. End of previous comment. New comment: It seems that, while you are satisfied that we can go ahead, there may be further shoes to drop. We'd like to get an authoritative resolution of the issue before we go back to contributing. It's a lot of work, and if there's a chance it will all be deleted, we don't want to pursue it. Dmbowden (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I think you're probably mostly in the clear, but I'd like to make a few suggestions that are likely to help. These suggestions are based on my personal experience as well as feedback such as this.
 * You should add a message on the talk page of each article you've created--boilerplate style is fine--that clearly indicates the initial content is properly licensed with relevant links. I'd suggest you could even cut-and-paste the following text"The initial content for this article was imported from BrainInfo where it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. I, as author of BrainInfo at the University of Washington, am authorized to act in the capacity of copyright holder, and I hereby give permission to our staff and others not to attach the attribution statement to entries in Wikipedia, per Donating copyrighted materials. ~" This should render as"The initial content for this article was imported from BrainInfo where it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. I, as author of BrainInfo at the University of Washington, am authorized to act in the capacity of copyright holder, and I hereby give permission to our staff and others not to attach the attribution statement to entries in Wikipedia, per Donating copyrighted materials. [your signature]"If you place this on each talk page, it would probably cover all the bases very well.
 * When you create any new articles from now on, please place in your initial edit summary something like "article content licensed under CC BY 3.0 with full copyright permission; details on talk page" and add the boilerplate info to the talk page.
 * If you have any further worries, don't hesitate to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org for further guidance.
 * I hope this is useful. Thanks for working on this.
 * P.S. - see edits like this one to get an idea of the type of formatting that helps make Wikipedia articles more accessible. This tool helps facilitate reference formatting. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That might be wise, as there is wp:NODEADLINE, at least on WP's end of things. If nothing major crops up in a few days, I'd say you can take it as agreed. Don't be afraid of making red links, they just act as cues for people to add further content. I made some changes to Heterotypic cortex, Adrenergic cell group C1 and their talkpages that you might take a look at as examples of things that might work a bit better. Please remember that WP is for a general audience. You might want to take a look too at User:Diberri's tools for citation building. While free-form citations are accepted, there is added value to using the templates, in that they help build linkages to other resources. Welcome to WP. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. We have revised, using the reference template, all of the citations for stubs that we've submitted. We'll change 'label' to something like 'shown evidence for the presence of'. It's more bulky but less jargony for non-neuroanatomists. We intend, when we have all the of entries for monoaminergic nuclei entered, to go back and create the kinds of hyperlink you've done for heterotypic cortex and adrenergic cell group C1. Dmbowden (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for contributing this BI data to Wikipedia. It makes such a difference being able to find clear, reliable descriptions of the more obscure brain regions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...And Thanks To You
We greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. Dmbowden (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adrenergic group C2
I assume you created the above in error because there's another article Adrenergic cell group C2, previously created by yourself. So I've proposed Adrenergic group C2 be deleted.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for detecting the same text under two headings. I presume you went ahead and deleted the one without 'cell' in the name...at least I don't get it when I search WP for it. Thanks again for removing it. --Dmbowden (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Doug Bowden